Date Hearing Time Location Pages
3/28/2011 Motion - Winslow, George 8:00 AM
2/14/2011 Motion - Winslow, George 8:00 AM
10/19/2010 Petition/Motion 1:00 PM
4/28/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Status Hearing - Roche, Renee A 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
Date Hearing Time Location Pages
4/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 8:00 AM
4/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Roche, Renee A 8:00 AM
1/5/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Roche, Renee A 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Non-Jury Trial - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Status Hearing - Roche, Renee A 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM
1/5/2006 Status Hearing - Deactivated, Deactivated 9:00 AM

Case Type: Paternity DOR Date Filed: 8/29/2005
Location: Div 42 UCN: 482005DR014270A001OX
Judge: Alan S Apte Status: Re-Closed
Citation Number: Paternity DOR Appear By Date:
Parties
Name Type Attorney Atty Phone
SHEILA JOCELYN SHAW Petitioner BARBARA JONES 407-849-1133

CARLOS ALBERTO GONZALEZ Respondent




An exception to the rule that mere silence is not fraud exists when
circumstances impose upon a person the duty to speak and he deliberately remains silent. Scaife
Co. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 446 Pa. 280, 285 A.2d 451 (1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 920
(1972).
To constitute actionable fraud, the nondisclosure of information must be
intentional and must relate to information which is material to the transaction. Roberts v. Estate
of Barbagallo, 366 Pa. Super. 559, 531 A.2d 1125 (1987). Where the omitted information is not
material to the transaction, there is no fraud. Sevin v. Kelshaw, 417 Pa. Super. 1, 611 A.2d
1232 (1992

A Lawyer’s Obligation to Report Another Lawyer’s Misconduct

A lawyer suing another lawyer for malpractice on behalf of a client is required by Rule 8.3 to report to bar disciplinary authorities the conduct that is the subject of the malpractice action, if she has sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts, if her knowledge is not protected as a client confidence or secret, and if the conduct of the other lawyer both constitutes a violation of an ethical rule and raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness in other respects.
    Where a lawyer learns of another lawyer’s misconduct in the course of representing her client, and the information about the misconduct constitutes a confidence or secret within the meaning of Rule 1.6, that Rule prohibits her reporting it without the client’s consent. If, after having been made fully aware of any possible adverse consequences for his ultimate recovery, the client does consent, then neither Rule 1.6 nor Rule 1.3(b)(2) bars reporting. On the facts of this case, the Committee is unable to conclude that the misconduct at issue (failure to comply with the statute of limitations and representation of conflicting interests) gives rise to an obligation under Rule 8.3 to report.