Beware part 5

Here is more of the lawsuit against Palange, Endres and Gentile from documents obtained from the public records.

 

66. The conduct of each of the Defendants at all times material to this matter was

outrageous, wanton and willful, and forms the basis for an award of punitive damages in this

matter.

COUNT I - WRONGFUL USE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Cheryl A. Rowe vs. Palange, Endres and Gentile

67. The averments of Paragraphs I through 66 are incorporated by reference herein as

if set forth in the entirety.

68. On March 28, 2008,.at civil action No. II-DB 2006 before the Disciplinary Board

of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, after a full hearing on the merits of the disciplinary

complaints filed by Ann Endres, Dawn Palange and Lisa Gentile against Cheryl A. Rowe, the

Hearing Committee recommended a complete dismissal of all charges against Plaintiff Rowe

because the claimants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish that Ms. Rowe violated

either RPC 8.4(b) or RPC 8.4(c).

69. Subsequently, on May 22,2008, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania confirmed the Report of the Hearing Committee and dismissed the case.

70. Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8351, the tort of malicious use of civil process arises

when defendants wrongfully initiate or continue civil proceedings against the plaintiff.

II

• •

71. Defendants Endres, Palange and Gentile instigated the procurement, initiation and

continuation of civil proceedings before the Disciplinary Board against Plaintiff Rowe, falsely

claiming that Plaintiff Rowe routinely over billed her clients.

72. Defendants knew that Plaintiff Rowe utilized a timekeeping system known as

Timeslips, which software reduced the time elements recorded, resulting in each entry, other than

a full hour or half hour time element, being billed in an amount less than the amount indicated on

each attorney's written time sheet. Moreover, Defendants routinely instructed the billing clerks

as to billing, and they approved, corrected and charged the billing as they saw fit.

73. The Disciplinary Board proceedings against Plaintiff Rowe terminated in favor of

Plaintiff Cheryl Rowe.

74. Defendants Endres, Palange and Gentile acted in a grossly negligent manner, or

without probable cause in filing their complaints with the Disciplinary Board.

75. Defendants Endres, Palange and Gentile instigated and pursued Disciplinary

Board proceedings for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claims

in which the proceedings were based.

76. Plaintiff Rowe believes and, therefore, avers that Defendants filed their

complaints with the ODC for the purpose of intimidating and harassing her upon their departure

from Plaintiffs law firm and in retaliation for alleged unfair or unjust treatment while they were

employed by Plaintiff.

77. Defendants, during the pendency of the Disciplinary Board proceedings, openly

informed members of the Bar in Berks County that they had instituted such proceedings, and

12

• •

openly discussed aspects of the proceedings in public places such as the Prothonotary's Office of

the Berks County Courthouse with other lawyers and in the presence of members of the public.

78. Such public discussions engaged in by Defendants relating to the Disciplinary

Board proceedings against Plaintiff Rowe were purposely held to harm the reputation of Plaintiff

Rowe among the public and the members of the Bar.

79. As a result of Defendants' wrongful initiation and continuation of Disciplinary

Board proceedings, Plaintiff Rowe incurred nearly One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100

Dollars ($150,000.00) in attorney's fees and costs to defend herself throughout the proceedings.

80. As a result of Defendants' wrongful initiation and continuation of Disciplinary

Board proceedings, Plaintiff Rowe believes and therefore avers that the Berks County Bar

Association removed her name from the referral list for domestic relations cases for the period

May 2005 to April 2008, resulting in decreased revenues to Plaintiff Rowe's practice for that

same period.

81. Further, as a result of Defendants' wrongful initiation and continuation of the

Disciplinary Board proceedings, Plaintiff Rowe sustained significant emotional distress and

humiliation.

82. The conduct of Defendants in instituting and maintaining the Disciplinary Board

proceeding against Plaintiff Rowe was outrageous, willful and malicious, entitling Plaintiff Rowe

to recover punitive damages pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §83S1.

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing acts complained of in Count I, Plaintiff Cheryl

A. Rowe demands judgment in her favor and against Ann E. Endres, Dawn M.L. Palange and

Lisa D. Gentile in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($50,000.00),