| ► Attorney Cary B. Hall of Philadelphia a perjurer, certified Dumbo |
|
|
Attorney Cary B. Hall of Philadelphia a perjurer, certified Dumbo  
In 2005, attorney Hall was employed by Ms. Colleen Zoto regarding her employer’s appeal of an award of unemployment compensation. Ms. Zoto paid Hall $1,000 up front for his representation of her in this appeal.
After a hearing was scheduled on the appeal, Hall told Ms. Zoto that he would seek a continuance; however no continuance was ever granted.
On May 18, 2005, the employer and its attorney appeared at the scheduled hearing. Hall did not appear and advised Ms. Zoto to not appear.
On May 25, 2005, the hearing officer reversed the prior ruling allowing Ms. Zoto to obtain unemployment benefits and denied her claim. In the written order denying compensation, the officer stated that the last day to appeal the decision was June 9 and if it was sent via fax it had to be no later than 11:59 pm on the 9th.
On June 10, Hall attempted to appeal the decision via the means of a fax “cover sheet” dated June 9 along with a letter of the same date containing the appeal.
The fax cover sheet that Hall dated June 9, 2005 contained the imprinted date of June 10, 2005 from Hall’s own fax machine at the top of the page. Is this guy a certifiable Dumbo or what?
In fact, in his letter and statement to the hearing officer, Hall falsely stated that he had sent in the appeal on June 9, 2005.
On July 19, 2005, an additional hearing was held before Referee Senyk for the limited purpose of providing testimony regarding Hall’s contention that the appeal had been timely filed on June 9, 2005. At the hearing Hall falsely testified as follows:
“Based on those documents, it’s my testimony and my belief that the appeal was filed and sent by facsimile on June 9 that was timely. All I know, and trying to put together dates from the information and documents that I have in my file is that the letter was sent on the 9th of June by facsimile because that’s the date of the letter.”
The Disciplinary Board specifically ruled that Hall’s conduct regarding backdating the fax was not only false but was knowingly false. In fact, it was nothing more than an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the State. Additionally, the Board ruled that Hall’s testimony was false and constituted perjury.
As punishment for his fraudulent conduct and perjured testimony, the enablers on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gifted Hall with an eighteen (18) month suspension.
Because Attorney Misfits are held to a lower standard of conduct then we are, Hall was never criminally prosecuted for perjury despite being found guilty of it by the Disciplinary Board.
As we speak (ca. Jan 2011) Hall practices law out of an office at 121 E. Chestnut Street in Souderton, PA, which is a suburb of Philadelphia.
|