IN RE: Dean I.Orloff

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING Orloff's motion for reconsideration 7 & directing Clrk of Ct to REINSTATE Orloff's name to the roll of attys authorized to practice law in the USDC MDPA. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/13/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
DEAN I. ORLOFF

:
:
:

NO. 1:17-MC-95
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 7) for reconsideration filed by Dean I. Orloff (“Orloff”), requesting that the
court reconsider its prior order (Doc. 4) of April 18, 2017, disbarring Orloff from
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and it
appearing that the court’s prior order (Doc. 4) was based on notice to this court
from the Supreme Court of New Jersey of its disbarment of Orloff as reciprocal
discipline in response to his suspension with right to seek reinstatement by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, (see Docs. 1, 4),1 and the court observing that,
following a reinstatement hearing before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania (“Disciplinary Board”), during which proceeding Orloff and
several character witnesses testified in support of reinstatement, the Disciplinary
Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Orloff “possess the moral
qualifications, competency and learning in the law required to practice law in
Pennsylvania,” and that his “resumption of the practice of law . . . will be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice
1

Orloff failed to notify the court of either the Pennsylvania suspension or the
New Jersey disbarment of his own volition as required by the Local Rules of this
court. See LOCAL RULE OF COURT 83.21.1. In accordance with Local Rule 83.21.2,
this court responded to the New Jersey notice of disbarment by directing Orloff to
show cause on or before March 23, 2017 why imposition of identical discipline
would be unwarranted. (Doc. 2). The record reflects that the show cause order
addressed to Orloff was returned unclaimed on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 3). Orloff
maintains that he did not receive the show cause order. (See Doc. 7).

or subversive of the public interest,” (Doc. 7, Ex. C at 11), and recommended that
Orloff be reinstated to the practice of law, (see id. at 16), and the court observing
further that, on June 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted in full
the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation and ordered that Orloff be reinstated to
the practice of law in the Commonwealth, (id. at 1), and, acknowledging that the
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence
or correct injustice, see Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677-78 (3d
Cir. 1999); Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and that the
court possesses an inherent power to reconsider its orders “when it is consonant
with justice to do so,” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); see
Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co., 301 F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008),
and the court resolving that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s rigorous and
thorough evaluation of Orloff’s current fitness to practice law, and its resultant
determination that Orloff possesses the requisite moral and professional fitness to
be reinstated to the bar of the Commonwealth, support a similar finding sub judice,
it is hereby ORDERED that Orloff’s motion (Doc. 7) for reconsideration is
GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reinstate Orloff’s name to the
roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania