decided: October 30, 1975.
IN RE ALOYSIUS J. STAUD ET AL., APPELLANTS IN NOS. 587, 608 (TWO CASES). IN THE MATTER OF AN ATTORNEY. APPEAL OF ALOYSIUS J. STAUD, IN NO. 395. APPEAL OF ARTHUR D. RABELOW, IN NO. 396. APPEAL OF MARVIN LUNDY, IN NO. 397. APPEAL OF DONALD F. MANCHEL, IN NO. 398
I. Raymond Kremer, Neil H. Stein, Philadelphia, for appellants; Kremer, Krimsky & Luterman, P.C., Philadelphia, of counsel.
William P. Stewart, Sp. Counsel, Philadelphia, for appellee, Special Judicial Investigation, and for appellant at No. 608 and appellee No. 587.
Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 464 Pa. Page 290]
OPINION OF THE COURT
The appeal at No. 587 January Term, 1974 was from an Order entered by the Special Disciplinary Court of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia entered June 27, 1974*fn1 and the Appeals docketed at Nos. 395, 396, 397, 398 January Term, 1973 from an Order of the Honorable Kendall H. Shoyer entered May 24, 1973.*fn2 After the entry of the Order of Judge Shoyer, appellants Staud, Rabelow, Lundy, and Manchel appealed to this Court. By Memorandum Opinion filed November 26, 1973, the cause was remanded for further proceedings before a
[ 464 Pa. Page 291]
Special Disciplinary Court that had been convened by the then President Judge Donald D. Jamieson to dispose of certain categories of alleged unethical behavior. After the entry of the Order of the Special Disciplinary Court, the matter is again before this Court.
Voluminous pleadings have been filed in the matter before us and oral argument has been heard. The most recent petition is the request of Mr. Stewart, Special Counsel, that the appeals be remanded to the appropriate courts below. Mr. Stewart asserts that if this Court is disposed to remand the matter to the lower court, he will request those courts to vacate the Disciplinary Orders from which these appeals have been taken. In response, counsel for the lawyer-appellants argues the need for a definitive resolution of the issues raised. These appellants also charged that they have improperly been caused to sustain substantial loss as a result of these proceedings.
In our judgment, if the Special Counsel is permitted to carry out his stated intention and if the courts below accede to his request, the matter will be resolved and no purpose would be served by further exploration of the cause. Moreover, if lawyer-appellants are correct in their assertion that they were wrongly caused to sustain damages, their remedy is to be sought in another proceeding. This was not an action in tort to recover damages but rather simply a question as to the validity of the Orders of Suspension. The withdrawal of the Orders of Suspension would necessarily moot all issues involved.
Accordingly, the Appeal docketed at No. 587 January Term, 1974, is remanded to the Special Disciplinary Court of the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia and the Appeals docketed at Nos. 395, 396, 397, 398 January Term, 1973, are remanded to Judge Shoyer. The Cross-Appeal of the Special Judicial Investigation at No.
[ 464 Pa. Page 292608]
January Term, 1974 is withdrawn without prejudice.*fn3
It is so ordered.