Erie lawyer gets public reprimand over handling of $6,000 fee in criminal case

An Erie lawyer's handling of a case has earned him a rebuke from his peers.

Anthony Rodriques, a lawyer for 13 years, has received a public reprimand from the state board that regulates lawyers. He is allowed to continue to practice law.

The public reprimand, administered at a hearing livestreamed on Thursday, culminated an investigation in which the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that Rodriques, 62, violated the state's rules for professional conduct for lawyers.

A three-member panel of the board said Rodriques erred by failing to initially return $6,000 and documents to a defendant who had paid him to represent her in a criminal case in Allegheny County in 2021. He was also to consider representing her in a civil rights case in Allegheny County. His flat fee in the criminal case was $6,000, the panel said.

The panel also faulted Rodriques for not providing a fee agreement to the client at the start of the representation, according to information presented at the hearing. And the panel said that his fee — which the panel said amounted to $300 an hour, based on the number of hours Rodriques said he spent on the case — violated professional standards that prohibit a lawyer from charging a "clearly excessive fee."

The client, Pittsburgh resident Lynne L. Thompson, asked Rodriques to represent her in October 2021, the panel said. In November 2021, she told him to no longer take her case because he had yet to provide her a fee agreement, and she told him to refund the $6,000 immediately, according to the reprimand.

"After satisfying your requirement for payment of the $6,000 in full, your client made multiple requests for a written fee agreement, but you failed to send her one," according to the reprimand. "You expressed frustration with your client's requests for the fee agreement and informed her that you were going to charge her for every telephone call to you."

Records also show she was unhappy with his representation, which the panel said lasted two weeks, and Rodriques "did not represent her on any aspect of her criminal case," according to the reprimand. Thompson said she had to wait a year to get back her $6,000.

The disciplinary panel said Rodriques' behavior warranted a public reprimand. The panel also warned him against future misbehavior in light of him receiving a private admonition in October 2021 "to address your misconduct concerning lack of diligence and lack of communication in a client matter," the lead panelist, Celeste Dee, a lawyer from Bethlehem, told Rodriques.

"It is the board's duty to reprimand you for this misconduct," Dee said of the current case as she read from the reprimand. "Please be aware that any subsequent violations on your part can only result in further discipline and more severe sanctions. Due to your history of discipline, we certainly hope that you will conduct yourself in a such a manner that future disciplinary action will be unnecessary."

A public reprimand by the Disciplinary Board is the least severe of the types of public discipline that a lawyer can face in Pennsylvania. The most severe is disbarment, followed by suspension, public censure by the state Supreme Court, probation and public reprimand. Lawyers can also face private reprimand or informal admonition, which is also private.

Rodriques disputes findings contained in public reprimand

Rodriques almost ended Thursday's hearing without accepting the reprimand.

He twice told the panel he disagreed with its findings and said he did not want to go through with the hearing.

The panelists warned him that his refusal to accept the public reprimand would expose him to a more significant penalty.

"It appears at this point that you don't have any remorse for what you have done," said panelist Robert Mongeluzzi, a lawyer from Philadelphia. "That is a key factor."

"I have remorse," Rodriques said, "but that does not mean I should admit things that are a not true."

In explaining his hesitation, Rodriques said, "I see prosecutors do this all the time. If the guy doesn't agree, then he will face stronger penalties so he agrees."

He then went through the rest of the hearing.

He said afterward that he felt that the panel "bullied" him. He said he returned the money as Thompson, his former client, had requested.

"I feel that the allegations that were filed were untruths or half-truths," Rodriques said in an interview. "The threat of something worse happening is why I agreed to it."

Thompson said she was pleased that Rodriques received the reprimand. She was not present at the hearing.

"That's good," Thompson, in an interview, said of the reprimand. She said he had hired Rodriques as the result of a referral.

"He caused me aggravation by not doing what he was supposed to do," Thompson said. Getting back her money, she said, "was a fight."

Client also sued Rodriques to get money back

Thompson filed a complaint against Rodriques with the Disciplinary Board on Nov. 18, 2021, and sued him before an Erie magistrate to get the money back, according to the records.

"This attorney never represented me anywhere," Thompson said in the complaint form she filed with the Disciplinary Board.

The form is attached to a civil complaint Thompson filed against Rodriques in a suit docketed at the office of Erie 1st Ward District Judge Sue Mack in December 2021. After Rodriques did not appear at a hearing in that case in April 2022, Mack ruled in favor of Thompson and entered a judgment that required Rodriques to pay Thompson $6,206.35 — $6,000 she had given Rodriques to represent her and $206.35 to cover what Thompson had to spend to sue him.

Rodriques appealed to Erie County Common Pleas Court, where the case is pending. It would appear to be moot because Rodriques refunded Thompson in November, she said. The Disciplinary Board also required him to repay Thompson and return the documents as part of the reprimand. She said she got the documents back sometime before she got the refund.

Rodriques filed suit in federal court in unrelated case

Rodriques handles a wide variety of criminal cases, including homicides, and other cases. He gained attention recently when he sued in federal court in Erie over claims of racial bias in the Erie County justice system.

Rodriques, who is Black, sued the county and two Erie magistrates in 2022, claiming he was improperly denied access to court records in a homicide case. Rodriques claimed District Judges Tom Carney, of the 3rd Ward, and Ed Wilson, of the 2nd Ward, treated him unfairly, and that Carney's actions were "based on race." Carney and Wilson are white.

Lawsuit filed: 'Thwarted' Erie lawyer sues 2 district judges over public records, claims racial bias

Rodriques eventually got the records, but continued to pursue the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter dismissed the case months ago.

Baxter in November ruled that judicial immunity shielded Carney and Wilson from being sued. She then threw out Rodriques' claims against the county after finding he failed to file an amended lawsuit against the county. Baxter had allowed Rodriques to file the amended complaint after she tossed the claims against Carney and Wilson.

Baxter issued her final order in the case Jan. 13, saying she dismissed Rodriques' claims against the county "due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute."

Rodriques said at the time the dismissal had left him undeterred from going to court again.

"I would do it again," he said. "If I feel that I am in any way being treated unfairly, I will sue whoever I feel is responsible."

Case dismissed: Judge cites immunity, tosses 'thwarted' Erie attorney's lawsuit that claimed racial bias

'What would you like to do?' panelist says at disciplinary hearing

At the hearing Thursday, Rodriques said he was being treated unfairly due to what he said were the false claims in the reprimand. He contemplated whether he wanted to end the hearing and face the possibility of a stiffer penalty.

"What would you like to do?" said Dee, one of the panelists. "Would you like to send this back to defend what you feel is inaccurate, or would you like to proceed with the reprimand?"

"And if I proceed with the reprimand, I am agreeing to all the facts that you stated?'" Rodriques said.

"Correct," Dee said.

"I can't agree to that," Rodriques said. "Because all the facts that you stated were not correct,"

Dee cautioned Rodriques that ending the hearing would expose him to the possibility of more severe discipline. She said he could have disputed the Disciplinary Board's findings before the case got the stage of a reprimand.

Rodriques fell silent for about 30 seconds as he decided what to do.

"Do you want to proceed, or do you want me to send it back?" Dee said.

"I want you to proceed," Rodriques said.

"Wise choice," said Mongeluzzi, one of the other panelists.

Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@timesnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ETNpalattella.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Erie lawyer gets disciplined for handling of fee in criminal case