A disciplinary board has publicly reprimanded a Pittsburgh attorney who refused to represent a defendant last spring due to a spat with Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.
Lawyer Milton Raiford withdrew from the case in June, moments before the trial in the matter was set to begin. Raiford told Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Anthony Mariani that he would not participate in the proceeding unless he could meet with Zappala or if Zappala were to recuse himself from the case.
The previous week, controversy had erupted over a memo the district attorney emailed his staff, instructing them to deny plea deals to Raiford’s clients. Zappala issued the policy in response to statements Raiford made in open court the previous month, criticizing the prosecutor's office and the court system more broadly for being racially biased. Raiford accused government attorneys of offering less favorable plea terms to defendants of color and said he would not accept the agreements.
Zappala drew widespread condemnation within the legal community, and he eventually rescinded his rule against Raiford.
But in an order last week, a three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that Raiford violated several ethics rules when he refused to take part in the June trial as part of his protest against Zappala.
It also faulted Raiford for publicly telling Mariani that he wanted to withdraw from a separate case in February 2021 because he believed his client was guilty.
In its review of both cases, the disciplinary panel said Raiford’s personal interests had put his clients at significant risk. Attorneys’ rules of professional conduct prohibit such conflicts of interest.
The panel also concluded that Raiford broke a rule that bars lawyers from asserting their opinions about the justness of a cause, credibility of a witness, or guilt or innocence of a defendant. In addition, Raiford violated policies against conduct that is intended to disrupt a tribunal and that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, the panel ruled.
Raiford consented to the public reprimand and signed the panel's order, along with a lawyer representing the state's office of disciplinary counsel.
The disciplinary board discloses investigations of attorney misconduct only when it chooses to issue a public reprimand, suspend an attorney from practicing law, or remove a practitioner from the lawyers’ bar entirely.
Last week’s order noted the same body had disbarred Raiford in 1997 after he was convicted for enlisting an impersonator to pretend to be his client and plead guilty to a crime. While that history could have resulted in a more severe sanction following Raiford’s dispute with Zappala, the disciplinary panel cited several mitigating factors, including the feud itself.
“While this does not justify [Raiford’s] failure to discharge his responsibilities to his client and the court, it explains and mitigates his misconduct,” the order said.
It also noted that Raiford apologized publicly to his client and court officials. In addition to refunding his client for legal fees, he has a record of providing free legal counsel to criminal defendants and engaging in community service, the panel said.
While critics demanded disciplinary action against Zappala for how he handled his rift with Raiford, the district attorney has not faced public sanctions.
