The disciplinary report of lawyer who abused the trust of a Scientology victim

[Suspended Philadelphia attorney Brian Kent]

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Bar revealed that it was suspending the law license of attorney Brian Kent for three years — or actually, suspending his license for a year and then putting him on probation for the other two years.

The Bar also published its lengthy description of what occurred between Kent and a woman who had come to him with allegations of abuse by the Church of Scientology.

Her complaint was supposed to be confidential, but it was leaked against her wishes by some YouTube activists last year. As a result, if a hearing would have been held in the case, the woman would have had to testify in a public setting, something she very much did not want to do.

However, Kent has admitted to his misconduct and a hearing will not have to be held, which the Bar considered a mitigating factor when it decided on its penalty.

In the Bar’s report, the unnamed victim is referred to by her initials. We know you are curious about what the report says, but before publishing it we have replaced those initials with the name “Jane Roe” (in order to differentiate her from the Jane Does who are Danny Masterson victims, and who also were represented at one time by Brian Kent).

Kent is no longer handling any cases for Scientology victims. But as we saw just the other day, he has been pulled in for a deposition in Jane Doe 1’s lawsuit, and she has had to sit for a grueling Scientology deposition, because of the leak of Roe’s complaint.

Victims of Scientology already face huge odds against getting justice, the last thing they need is an abusing attorney. Let us know your thoughts on what is in the report.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2025, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, and Brian Dooley Kent is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three years, with one year to be served. The remaining suspension period is stayed, and he is placed on probation for two years, subject to the following conditions:

1. Respondent shall undergo counseling throughout the three-year period of his suspension, on at least a monthly basis or as prescribed by his mental health professional;

2. Respondent shall cooperate with the directions of the mental healthcare professional supervising his treatment;

3. Respondent shall file quarterly written reports with the Board Prothonotary, which shall reflect his continued compliance with these conditions, and shall attach reports from his mental healthcare professional verifying the above counseling and treatment; and

4. Respondent shall not commit any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct or Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).

…

Factual Admissions and Rules of Professional Conduct Violated

4. Respondent has focused his career on the representation of victims of sexual abuse, assault, and trafficking, first as a sex crimes prosecutor and more recently through his private practice.

5. Beginning in or about March 2019, Respondent met [Jane Roe] and agreed, along with his former law firm, then known as Laffey Bucci & Kent, LLP, as well as several other law firms, to investigate a potential lawsuit against the Church of Scientology on behalf of Roe. (Although Respondent did not provide Roe with an engagement letter until December 2019, he does not contest that an attorney-client relationship existed before that time.)

6. Jane Roe lived in [redacted].

7. After an initial call with Roe, Respondent began following her Instagram and Twitter accounts, and "liking" her posts.

8. During the time he represented Roe, Respondent exchanged thousands of text messages, messages on "WhatsApp," and emails with her; many of these communications concerned personal rather than professional matters.

9. Respondent also had telephone communications with Roe regarding personal matters, including telling her about sexual abuse he had suffered as a child.

10. During his representation of Roe, Respondent:

a. exchanged communications with her suggesting that he wanted to pursue a sexual relationship;

b. engaged in sexual conduct with her; and

c. continued to represent Roe despite his awareness that his conduct had substantially impaired the attorney-client relationship.

11. Respondent's communications with Roe also reflected his awareness of his ethical obligations, as he repeatedly referenced the need to maintain "professional boundaries" while violating those same boundaries in 2019.

12. Beginning in April 2019, Respondent and Roe exchanged communications that were personal and flirtatious.

13. In or around May 2019, Roe informed Respondent that she had been invited to travel to Los Angeles for a show related to Scientology; Respondent told Roe that he would try to join her there.

14. In an exchange of WhatsApp messages dated May 7, 2019, Roe revealed personal feelings toward Respondent which she explained made her "stressed and confused," and expressed her concern that he would "drop" her as a client if she said the wrong thing.

15. Respondent reassured Roe that "we will represent you," but that he would "need to maintain the professional aspect."

16. As reflected in the May 7, 2019 messages, Respondent was aware not only of Roe's personal feelings for him but also that getting involved romantically with her would negatively impact his ability to provide proper representation by creating a potential "personal interest" conflict of interest.

17. Throughout the remainder of May 2019, Respondent continued to have personal, flirtatious, and sexually suggestive communications with Roe.

18. At the time Respondent engaged in these exchanges, he continued to recognize that a romantic relationship with his client was contrary to his ethical obligations.

19. Respondent's knowledge of his ethical obligations was reflected in a WhatsApp message, dated May 31, 2019, where, after a long string of texts that veered from flirtatious to suggestive, he wrote. "It's just as we talked before, I can't cross certain boundaries...I just can't ever do that."

20. Respondent booked hotel rooms for himself and Roe at the SLS Marriott in Los Angeles for the taping of the show related to Scientology.

21. In June 2019, Respondent informed Roe that he had a respiratory illness.

22. In a WhatsApp message, dated June 5, 2019, Roe offered to give Respondent a massage and an "Indian head massage," which she believed could help with his condition.

23. On June 5, 2019, after Roe had finished taping her show, Roe went to Respondent's room, at which time:

a. Respondent changed into a shirt and sweatpants;

b. Roe lay down next to Respondent and began to give him a massage;

c. Respondent engaged in sexually explicit conversation with Roe;

d. Respondent and Roe engaged in touching that was sexual in nature; and

e. there was no sexual intercourse.

24. Respondent then asked Roe to leave his room.

25. The next day, Respondent, Roe, and another client had dinner together.

26. After dinner, Roe changed into her pajamas and returned to Respondent's hotel room.

27. While in Respondent's room, he again engaged in sexual contact with Roe, but did not engage in sexual intercourse.

28. On June 7, 2019, Respondent and Roe went to the airport together, and returned to their homes.

29. Roe's communications with Respondent after returning from Los Angeles reflected the adverse impact his conduct had had on the attorney-client relationship, including causing her to have increased feelings of vulnerability and insecurity about their relationship.

30. By a WhatsApp message and an email, both dated September 17, 2019, Roe:

a. told Respondent she would be meeting with the U.S Department of Justice ("DOJ") in October or November 2019;

b. told Respondent she had arranged that he could "come and meet with them too[,] [f]irst as [her] lawyer and then so [he could] talk to them and find out everything from them and vice versa if [he] want[ed] to"; and

c. asked about his availability to meet her in Los Angeles.

31. Respondent agreed to travel to Los Angeles for the meeting with the DOJ.

32. To accommodate Respondent's schedule, Roe arranged to be in Los Angeles from October 10 through 13, 2019.

33. In an exchange of WhatsApp messages, between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2019, Respondent and Roe had personal communications that were again flirtatious and sexually suggestive.

34. During an October 7. 2019, exchange of flirtatious and suggestive messages, Respondent also discussed Roe's legal matters with her, including:

a. confirming that her meeting with the DOJ was on October 15, 2019;

b. telling her he would be meeting with her on October 14, 2019, to review her documents with her.

c. agreeing she would be the only one he would be meeting with on October 14, 2019; and

d. telling her he would be meeting with other clients on October 15, 2019.

35. In a lengthy exchange of WhatsApp messages, dated October 8, 2019:

a. Roe told Respondent that while in Los Angeles, "[i]t will be LA Marriott Spa";

b. Respondent replied, "I hope so," and asked what the "spa experience" would include;

c. Roe told Respondent the "spa experience" would include a "[f]ull body massage," an "Indian head massage," and a "foot massage," with "massage oil";

d. Respondent said that would be "pretty unbelievable";

e. Roe told Respondent she was bringing massage oil with her, that she had "magic hands," that she would be "the boss" during the massage, and that it would be "the best massage [he] ever had in [his] life"; and

f. Respondent told Roe that would be "a high burden" and she would need to "pull out some special moves."

36. In an exchange of WhatsApp messages, dated October 9, 2019:

a. Respondent told Roe he could not get approval for costs for the trip to Los Angeles unless he was certain the DOJ meeting was "definitely happening," requested the names and contact information for the relevant individuals, and told her he "need[ed] to speak to the department of justice folks before [he got] on a plane to go out there"; and

b. Roe told Respondent the "only reason [she was] going now [was Respondent]," and she was "devastat[ed]" that he might not be coming.

37. Respondent later confirmed that he would be going to Los Angeles for the meeting.

38. On October 11, 2019 — just three days after exchanging messages about a "spa experience" — Respondent sent Roe WhatsApp messages stressing his ethical obligations, telling her, inter alia, that he had "a professional and ethical obligation to [her] first and foremost as a client above anything else."

39. Roe became upset, telling Respondent, among other things, that "she care[d] about [him] so much" and that his comments had "crushed [her]."

40. Respondent told Roe that her feelings about him could be "a problem with [him] representing her."

41. Despite recognizing that Roe's feelings for him could cause a "problem" with any continued representation, Respondent continued to investigate her claims.

42. On October 13, 2019, Respondent and Roe arrived in Los Angeles for her meeting with the DOJ.

43. Respondent had dinner with Roe that night.

44. After dinner, Roe went to Respondent's hotel room in her pajamas.

45. While Respondent and Roe were in his hotel room, Respondent and Roe touched each other in a sexual manner. Again, they did not engage in sexual intercourse.

46. Respondent and Roe slept in Respondent's bed until 4:00 a.m., when his alarm went off.

47. Later that day, Respondent informed Roe that she could not sleep in his room again, as he did not want to be dishonest and go back to being the person he was in the past.

48. On October 14, 2019, Respondent met with Roe to review documents related to her case; they briefly discussed the documents before Respondent told Roe that he had other work to attend to.

49. On October 15, 2019, Respondent and Roe met with the DOJ.

50. On October 16, 2019. Roe returned to her home.

51. In an exchange of WhatsApp messages, dated October 21 2019, Respondent told Roe he could only "move forward being [her] attorney if everything remain[ed] professional."

52. Despite her feelings for Respondent, Roe promised she would maintain a professional relationship with him.

53. By a WhatsApp message, dated November 11, 2019, Roe:

a. informed Respondent that the DOJ wanted to meet her in Los Angeles on November 18, 2019, but they wanted his permission first; and

b. asked if she had his permission.

54. Respondent did not reply to Roe's message.

55. In a lengthy exchange of text messages on November 11, 2019:

a. Roe asked if Respondent had seen her WhatsApp messages;

b. Respondent told Roe he "shut down [his] WhatsApp" and was "going off texting all together for his clients";

c. Roe renewed her inquiry as to whether she could meet with the DOJ, told Respondent she was "always here" if he needed her, and asked whether he had deactivated WhatsApp and stopped texting because of her.

d. Respondent told Roe she could meet with DOJ; and

e. Respondent told Roe he needed to limit his communications with clients to telephone and email.

56. In November 2019, Roe attended the meeting with the DOJ in Los Angeles, where she learned that Respondent was still texting with other clients.

57. By a text message, dated December 7, 2019, Roe told Respondent she had sent him a message on "google drive" and asked if he had received it.

58. Respondent did not reply to Roe's message.

59. In an email to Respondent, dated December 10, 2019, Roe:

a. complained about Respondent's "lack of communication";

b. noted that she had sent Respondent a "summary of her case questions," but he did not respond;

c. noted that she had sent Respondent a set of "organized documents" and then sent him a text asking if he had received them, but he again failed to respond; and

d. asked Respondent to "please take the time to answer [her] with whatever [he] needed to say."

60. Respondent did not reply to the email.

61. In a series of text messages sent later that day, Roe:

a. complained about Respondent's failure to respond to her inquiries;

b. told Respondent she "fe[lt] like [he] wanted absolutely nothing to do with [her]";

c. asked if Respondent was still representing her;

d. asked Respondent to please "answer [her] case questions and [her] other email";

e. "promise[d] [she would] NEVER cross boundaries again"

f. pleaded with Respondent to "not ignore her" because it was "really hurtful."

62. By a text message, dated December 10, 2019, Respondent apologized to Roe for not responding, explaining that he was working on filing three motions and had been very sick. Respondent explained, "I have had the flu for a while. Starting to feel better now. Hoping to heal up once I get all of these motion responses done."

63. In a series of text messages, dated December 19, 2019:

a. Roe told Respondent she had heard he was dropping some cases against Scientology, and wanted to know if she still had a case;

b. Respondent told Roe "the group" had not made any definitive decision with respect to her case and that it was "still in the investigation stage";

c. Roe complained that Respondent had "told [her] this entire time that [she] 100% had a case" and she was not sure what had changed; and

d. Roe told Respondent she felt she deserved to have him talk to her and that she felt like he "absolutely dislike[d] [her]."

64. In a text message, also dated December 19, 2019, Respondent replied, telling Roe, "I/we will not be able to represent you if you feel this is personal or that I/we dislikes [sic] you. No one dislikes you. Again, we can schedule a call after the new year with Guy and I. (Referring to Guy D'Andrea, who was then an associate and later a partner at Respondent's firm.) No one is saying you don't have a case. But conversations via text like this are not working as a means of communication."

65. Later that day, Roe sent Respondent an additional text message which again reflected the adverse impact his improper conduct had had on the attorney-client relationship; among other things, Roe told Respondent that:

a. she was "writing [Respondent] as a person not as [her] lawyer";

b. she hoped that nothing she had written would "sabotage [her] potential of having a case";

c. it felt "horrible to have someone who was sooo nice to you and called you a friend and said they really enjoyed talking to you just change and turn so cold";

d. noted that she was "scared of writing [Respondent] because [she did] not want to be ignored or to say something that is wrong or upsets you";

e. asked Respondent not to "not have a case for [her] because of what [she] wrote"; and

f. promised to "do [her] best to just be a client and not to act like a friend."

66. In a text message, dated December 20, 2019, Respondent replied, "This is why I don't like texting" and "We'll connect after the new year."

67. In a series of emails, dated January 4 and 5, 2020, Respondent asked Roe not to text him and to use email instead.

68. Roe's communications with Respondent in January through March 2020, again reflected the negative impact his improper conduct had had with respect to the attorney-client relationship.

69. By way of example:

a. in a text message, dated January 16, 2020, Roe complained that Respondent was not responding to her and asserted that she knew she had "dug [her] grave with [him]";

b. in an email, dated January 22, 2020, Roe complained that Mr. D'Andrea had been on a recent call when she had wanted to "clarify" information with Respondent and suggested that she needed to speak with him "to sort out whatever's happened between us as friends so it's not awkward"'

c. in a text message, dated January 23, 2020, Roe complained that Respondent never answered her emails, and told him that she was "hurt and confused by how [he had] been towards [her] the last few months";

d. in an email, dated January 25, 2020, Roe told Respondent that she was in "pain," that while he told her not to "cross boundaries" he had done so "a few times," that she felt he had "put her in the category of some crazy girl," and that she was "treating [her] like he intensely dislike[d] [her]";

e. in a series of text messages, dated February 17, 2020, Roe, inter alia, stated that Respondent had "pursued [her] at first," asked why he could not talk to her and "give [her] closure," and noted further that [o]n the physical thing it wasn't just [her]";

f. in a lengthy series of text messages, dated March 18, 2020, Roe replied to Respondent's comment that he was "always trying to stick to boundaries" by telling him, inter alia, that she did not know what she had done "to make [him] someone who seemed to really like [her] to someone who doesn't," that she did not understand why he felt she was "so toxic for [him] to have in [his] life," that she "love[d] [him] unconditionally," and that the "sudden" change in how he communicated with her made it "feel[ ] like [her] heart was smashed into a million pieces"; and

g. in a lengthy exchange of text messages, dated March 24, 2020, Roe, inter alia, noted that Respondent had told her that "we had a connection and that [he was] glad [they] had met and that it was meant to have happened," and that she still felt that way.

70. In a lengthy exchange of text messages, dated April 13, 2020, Roe discussed Respondent's prior actions and its impact on her, stating, among other things, that:

a. it was "painful" that he had changed the way he acted after she was with him in Los Angeles in October, and that "[i]f she could rewind time [she would] just have given [him] the massage and walked...out";

b. she did not "understand why [he] made [her] fall in love with [him] when [he] felt nothing for [her]";

c. "the physical stuff happened"; and

d. she was "heartbroken."

71. In an exchange of emails, dated April 18, 2020:

a. Roe told Respondent that she was "excruciatingly hurt" by what had occurred between them and that it was "too late for [her] not to care about [him]";

b. Roe asked if Respondent was still going to file a case for her; and

c. Respondent told Roe that "we are still going to file a case for you."

72. In text messages, dated April 28, 2020, Roe told Respondent that he "had broken her heart, that she had tried to get over him but she could not do it, and she still loved him.

73. Respondent's responses to Roe's communications throughout the winter and spring of 2020, reflect some attempts to belatedly restore a more professional relationship, including:

a. in a text message, dated January 25, 2020, Respondent told Roe that he had read an email she sent and that he "hope[d] [she] underst[ood] [him] repeatedly saying that [he] need[ed] boundaries personally and professionally ha[d] nothing to do with not liking [her] as a person or anything personally. It ha[d] to do with [him] personally and professionally. [He was] happy to have a call but consider it a clean slate already moving forward";

b. in a text message, dated March 18, 2020, Respondent told Roe, "I think I've tried to explain it on a call and am happy to try and do so again. And I know you're not trying to be hurtful. But as I explained before, it's not right for me to be having personal conversations with any women. That's especially true with any one (sic) who is a client, which you are now. I know you don't want to hear that but that's true and there's actually a rule for that that [I] am required to abide by. As [I] said before conversations got too personal before and I take responsibility for that. But I'm just trying to do the right thing at the end of the day. That's all. And that has nothing to do with you personally;" and

c. in text messages, dated April 13, 2020, Respondent replied to Roe telling him his actions had made her fall in love with him by writing, "As I said before I take responsibility for allowing that connection to happen as there should have been boundaries up from the start. As I said, my MO is to be overly open and personal with people especially those that I feel safe talking with. And that's my fault... I said before that things got too personal. They did. I take responsibility for that. I've said that repeatedly before. I also have tried to explain why I cannot have a personal relationship for professional and personal reasons. And again, it has nothing to do with you as a person."

74. However, despite being aware that the attorney-client relationship remained impaired, Respondent continued to represent Roe.

75. Indeed, it should have become clear to Respondent that his efforts to set "boundaries" were inadequate and he needed to withdraw from the representation.

76. On or about August 19, 2020, Roe spoke with another law firm about her case.

77. In a lengthy exchange of text messages, dated August 20, 2020, Roe:

a. told Respondent she had spoken to the firm because he had told her it was a good idea;

b. expressed her feelings for Respondent and told him his responses made her feel "unwanted and unliked";

c. told Respondent she was "scared of writing" about her feelings because she "[did not] want [him] to send [her] a text saying if [she] feel[s] anything [he] can't represent [her]"; and

d. asked that [he] "please don't say [he] can't represent me if I feel what I feel."

78. In the August 20, 2020 exchange of text messages:

a. Respondent told Roe he was "not saying" that he could not represent her;

b. Respondent told Roe that if he did not answer something she wrote, it was "because it is something personal"; and

c. Roe apologized if she wrote anything personal, and went on to inquire as to what types of communications she could still send.

79. Roe's difficulties maintaining a purely professional relationship with Respondent continued, as reflected in additional text messages, sent in September and November 2020.

80. By a telephone call in January 2021, Respondent told Roe that, after evaluation, his firm could not bring a claim on her behalf.

81. In February 2021, Roe retained new counsel to represent her.

82. By his conduct as alleged in Paragraphs 4 through 81, above, Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

a. RPC 1.7(a)(2), which states that except as provided in paragraph 1.7(b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer;

b. RPC 1.8(j), which, at the time Respondent represented Roe, stated that a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced; and

c. RPC 1.16(a)(1), which states that except as stated in RPC 1.16(c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

Specific Joint Recommendation for Discipline

83. ODC and Respondent jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline for Respondent's admitted misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for three years, with the last two years stayed, along with probation and the condition that Respondent file reports reflecting his continued treatment with a counselor for his mental health issues throughout the three-year period.

84. Respondent hereby consents to that discipline being imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Attached to this Joint Petition is Respondent's executed Affidavit required by Pa.R.D.E. 215(d), stating that he consents to the recommended discipline, including the mandatory acknowledgments contained in Pa.R.D.E. 215(d)(1) through (4).

85. ODC and Respondent submit that the following are aggravating factors in this case:

a. Respondent misused a position of trust, as an advocate for victims of abuse, to take advantage of a vulnerable client; and

b. there was substantial adverse publicity regarding Respondent's conduct, which caused harm to the reputation of the Bar.

86. ODC and Respondent also submit that the following are mitigating factors in this case:

a. Respondent has admitted to engaging in misconduct and violating the charged Rules of Professional Conduct;

b. Respondent is remorseful and understands that his actions warrant the imposition of discipline, as is evidenced by his agreement to enter into this Joint Petition;

c. Respondent has no record of discipline since being admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania in December 2004;

d. by agreeing to this Joint Petition, Respondent has spared Roe the embarrassment, anxiety, and stress associated with testifying in a public proceeding; and

e. Respondent has proffered character evidence, including letters of support from members of his family, and participants in a men's counseling group of which he is a member, as well as letters and emails from former clients thanking him for his representation.

87. Respondent has also provided evidence of his civic involvement, including his:

a. membership on the board of ChildUSA a non-profit organization devoted to ending child abuse and neglect [After information related to his instant misconduct became public, in April 2024, Respondent resigned from the ChildUSA board.];

b. involvement in the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance, a network of service providers assisting survivors of human trafficking and sexual exploitation;

c. serving as a former board member and volunteer mentor for the University of Delaware HenLaw Society. an affinity group providing guidance, mentorship, and opportunities to students pursuing careers in the legal profession;

d. volunteering with the Montgomery County Child Advocacy Project from 2015 through 2021, during which time he was court-appointed to serve as an advocate in six cases; and

e. membership on the Advisory Board for the National Crime Victim Bar Association from 2020 through 2021.

88. In addition, Respondent has proffered evidence regarding his mental health which, if proven at a hearing, would satisfy the requirements of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 553 A.2d 894 (Pa. 1989). Specifically, Respondent has provided a report from his therapist, who states that she has been treating Respondent since August 2018. A copy of the therapist's report is attached as Exhibit A. The therapist has diagnosed Respondent with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, related to his having been sexually abused as a child, and has opined that his misconduct in this matter was "substantially caused by his ongoing post-traumatic stress." Specifically, she opined that his past trauma resulted in "impaired judgment and poor decision-making" during the period when he represented Roe. She also provided a supplemental report, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. In the supplemental report, the therapist advised that Respondent is engaged in weekly therapy, and continues his participation in a men's group addressing mental health issues. She offered her opinion that, so long as Respondent remains committed to therapy, his chance of reverting to past poor behaviors is "very low."

89. The therapist also offered her opinion that Respondent has addressed the issues that caused his conduct here. In her report, she states that "[i]t is because of his dedication to work through his trauma that Mr. Kent is not the same man that walked into [her] office six years ago." She also concludes that, "[h]e has advanced in his therapy and internalized these coping skills to the point where [she] believe[s] his judgment is restored and the likelihood of inappropriate behavior re-occurring is extremely low. [She does] not consider that he is currently at risk of crossing appropriate boundaries with a client."

90. If this case were to proceed to a hearing, Respondent would testify that he was motivated to embrace the defense of sexual assault victims because he himself was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. He would testify that for over 18 months, as a fourth and fifth grader, he was repeatedly sexually abused by a priest in charge of altar boys at his parish/school, and that the abuse stopped after the priest was moved to another parish.

91. Respondent would also testify that, as a child and young adult, he did his best to compartmentalize the emotions, pain and symptoms related to the abuse. Respondent would further testify that in August of 2018, he and his family realized he needed significant help and that he sought intensive treatment and began to disclose these events to his therapists, his family, and his colleagues/friends. However, upon completion of the treatment program, instead of taking time off from work, he buried himself in his job. At this point in his life, Respondent began his representation of Roe.

92. Respondent would further testify that, from November 2019 through August 2021, he isolated himself on the issue and did not seek the advice of his therapist, his partners, his family, or his support groups because he was ashamed of his misconduct and struggling with the issues raised by his own childhood abuse.

93. As set forth above, Respondent engaged in a course of misconduct over a period of nearly two years while representing a client in a matter involving allegations of abuse. Respondent committed the misconduct that is at issue here by having a personal relationship with Roe that violated RPC 1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(j). From November 2019 through February 2021, Respondent violated Rules 1.7(a)(2) and 1.16(a) when he failed to terminate the attorney-client relationship.

94. At the outset of the representation, Respondent engaged in communications with the client that suggested he had an interest in pursuing her romantically. These communications culminated in physical touching that constitutes a violation of RPC 1.8(j) between Respondent and his client during two trips to Los Angeles. Respondent's conduct had substantial negative impact on his client and adversely affected the attorney-client relationship. Despite being aware of the damaged relationship, and its impact on his ability to provide proper representation, Respondent failed to timely withdraw from the matter or assign new counsel to handle it.

95. Citing the comment to RPC 1.8(j), the Supreme Court has stressed that "[t]he relationship [between a lawyer and a client] is almost always unequal" and that a sexual relationship between the lawyer and the client "can involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer's fiduciary role, in violation of the lawyer's basic ethical obligation not to use the trust of the client's disadvantage." As such, Rule 1.8(j) prohibits a lawyer from having sexual relations with a client regardless of whether the relationship is consensual and regardless of prejudice to the client.

96. The range of sanctions in cases involving sexual relations with a client vary greatly based upon the specific facts and the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors...

98. In this case, the nature of Respondent's practice, as an advocate for victims of abuse, placed him in a position of trust with particularly vulnerable clients. By virtue of his reputation and position, he gained the trust of a vulnerable client, and then abused her trust.

99. In addition, Respondent's conduct generated negative publicity which adversely affected the reputation of the Bar and the legal profession. See, e.g., "A Philly Lawyer for Sexual Abuse Victims Left His Firm After An Ex-Client's Complaint Was Leaked," The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 26, 2024 (noting that Respondent, a "go-to personal injury lawyer for survivors of sexual abuse," was alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a client); "Survivors' Lawyer Accused of Shocking Misconduct," Catholics4Change; Apr. 29, 2024 (noting that Respondent's misconduct was "especially egregious given his client's vulnerability as a victim of sexual abuse"); "Laffey Bucci & Kent Name Partner's Exit Neither 'Mutual' Nor 'Amicable,' Firm Contends," The Legal Intelligencer, April 22, 2024 (discussing the allegations of Respondent's misconduct). This is another aggravating circumstance supporting the imposition of substantial discipline.

100. Respondent, on the other hand, has presented significant mitigation. As noted above, he has proffered an opinion from his therapist which, if proven at a hearing, would satisfy the requirements of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, supra, as well as evidence that he is taking steps to address his mental health issues.

101. Respondent has also proffered letters from character witnesses, as well as former clients, along with evidence of his civic involvement. He had demonstrated remorse for his actions, and has no prior discipline in nineteen years since being admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar, all of which provides further mitigation.

102. While a suspension is appropriate discipline for Respondent's misconduct, the totality of the circumstances — including Respondent's conduct, the mitigation presented, his years of treatment and rehabilitation since August 2021, and his continued treatment for mental health issues — does not warrant a term that would require him to undergo a reinstatement hearing. This proposed discipline is consistent with analogous precedent, which has imposed one-year suspensions for cases involving sexual relations with clients. The additional two years of stayed suspension, with probation and the condition that Respondent continue his mental health treatment, will provide further assurance that Respondent will not engage in similar misconduct in the future.

103. Accordingly, ODC and Respondent submit that a suspension of three years, with the last two years stayed, with probation and the proposed conditions, is appropriate discipline.

---

Want to help?

Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com. Find us at Threads: tony.ortega.1044 and Bluesky: @tonyortega.bsky.social

For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link for today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to a special podcast series…

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news