White declares victory at hearing
Attorney and former state lawmaker Jesse White is declaring a victory in his appearance before a committee of the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“I believed it to be an absolutely frivolous complaint,” White said Friday of the claim against him. “At this point, I’m just glad to have put this behind me.”
Responsible for investigating complaints against attorneys, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for discipline July 8, accusing White of “professional misconduct in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Although the counsel does not name complainants, White said the accusation against him was launched by three individuals he has battled in the past. “It’s purely politically motivated,” he said. “Instead of just laying down and taking it from these … people and the backers of the gas industry, I said ‘No, I’m not going to take this.’ I can say once and for all I didn’t do anything wrong and I’m tired of being treated like I did.”
White, who lost his re-election bid as state representative for the 46th Legislative District in 2014 and failed to secure the Cecil-area district judge seat this year, admitted on May 30, 2013, to posting anonymous comments online under numerous pseudonyms, most of which targeted supporters of natural gas development.
Attorneys must abide by the rules of conduct, which mandate minimum ethical standards for practicing law. If found in violation, White could be given penalties ranging from private discipline to being prohibited from practicing law in Pennsylvania through either suspension or disbarment.
According to Elaine Bixler, secretary of the disciplinary board, the hearing committee has not yet filed a formal recommendation to the 13-member board, but White contends the committee agreed with his position.
“They rendered a unanimous decision in my favor that no rules were violated,” White said. “I spent a lot of time and money to defend it. I requested a hearing, I felt the complaint was frivolous. I went in and very clearly told the story. I was able to demonstrate the clear bias that these (people) have, the vendetta to try to injure my reputation.”
The disciplinary board is an independent agency under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction with goals to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and safeguard the reputation of the courts. If the board were to take disciplinary action against White, it would be reviewed by the state Supreme Court, the licensing body.
“Beginning sometime prior to May of 2013, (White) began posting anonymous comments in online forums, sometimes calling himself ‘Prouder American,’ ‘NotTimSolobay,’ ‘Texas Timmy Solobay,’ ‘Victoria Adams,’ ‘Ashley Jackson,’ ‘Cindy McPherson,’ and ‘Frank Reynolds,’ among others,” the complaint reads. “(White) also posted under the full name of one of his critics, Janice Ludwin Gibbs. … (White’s) postings were almost all insulting to his critics, referring to them, among other things, as ‘mouth breathers,’ ‘hucksters,’ ‘industry moles,’ and ‘industry trolls.'”
The complaint goes on to say White denied making the comments several times before admitting to it, therefore violating the rule of professional conduct 8.4 (c), which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
In his answer to the petition, filed Aug. 25, White admits to the postings, but maintains he did nothing illegal.
“Various persons and groups supporting commercial fracking … participated actively in the campaign, supported (my) political opponent and engaged in an aggressive political effort that included social media commentary critical of (me). … It was in this context that (I) posted comments in online forums under certain pseudonyms, some of which posts were sarcastic or critical of those who posted comments critical of (me) or (my) political positions,” reads White’s response. “… It is very common, if not encouraged, practice on social media and blog sites for person to register or post under pseudonyms or fictitious names to ensure anonymity and encourage robust debate. … There is nothing illegal, unethical or otherwise improper about the widespread practice of using fictitious screen names for purposes of social media postings and commentary.”
White said the complaint failed to provide necessary support for the allegations that he at first denied the use of pseudonyms.
White also states that he does not recall using Gibbs’ full name, but admits to using a screen name of “Gibson” to respond to her criticism of him. He argues that his comments are protected speech under the First Amendment.
“The alleged misconduct … did not occur during the course of any lawyer-client relationship, nor are they the proper subject of lawyer discipline. … no one was deceived or defrauded under the circumstances,” White said in his answer.
Calling the petition “misguided and overreaching,” White asked that it be dismissed, “and, in the event any such violation occurred, it was de minimus (too trivial or minor to merit consideration) and not properly the subject of discipline.”
In April, White filed lawsuits against two news media organizations, a Facebook group and several individuals, claiming they defamed him over the last five years.