monarchmedia100
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner
No. —
DB 2025
V.
ANDY JOSEPH WATSON,
Respondent
Attorney Reg. No. 80068
(Potter County)
PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE
Petitioner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”), by Thomas J. Farrell, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer E. Tobias, Disciplinary Counsel, files the within Petition for Discipline and charges Respondent, Andy Joseph Watson, with professional misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPG”) as follows:
- Petitioner, whose principal office is situated at Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 2700, P.O. Box 62485, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106 is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules· of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereinafter “Pa.R.D.E.”), with the power and duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of any attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance.with the various provisions of said Rules.
- Respondent, Andy Joseph Watson, was born in 1972, and was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 3, 1997. Respondent’s Attorney Registration No. is 80068.
- Respondent’s address of record is Potter County District Attorney’s Office, 1 N. Main Street, Suite 215, Coudersport, PA 16915.
- Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 201(a)(1), Respondent is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
CHARGE
- Respondent has been the Potter County District Attorney since being elected and taking office in 2010.
- Before being elected District Attorney, Respondent served as First Assistant District Attorney in Potter County since his admission to the Bar in 1997.
- As District Attorney, in numerous instances between 2010 and 2022, Respondent sought to obtain information from third parties in conjunction with investigation into criminal matters.
- Respondent knew or should have known that under Pennsylvania law, a search warrant is required to obtain information concerning investigations in matters where there is no active case pending.
- Respondent knew or should have known that under Pennsylvania law, in order to obtain non-public information from third parties in a pending criminal investigation, evidence of probable cause must be presented before the Court, and a search warrant issued.
- Respondent knew or should have known that under Pennsylvania law, third party subpoenas are permissible only in active/pending cases before a court.
- On hundreds of occasions between 2010 and 2022, Respondent filled out and issued subpoenas to third parties listing a “miscellaneous” case number and caption, despite Respondent’s knowledge that there was no active matter pending.
- By his conduct issuing subpoenas to third parties in conjunction with his investigation in matters for which there was no active/pending case, Respondent affirmatively misrepresented to third parties that the Court authorized him to obtain the requested information.
- Respondent knew or should have known that the third parties to whom he issued subpoenas requesting information relied on his representation of authority, and believed they were compelled to provide the requested information.
- Beginning in 2012, Respondent implemented a new procedure when issuing subpoenas to third parties seeking information in a criminal investigation. Respondent enclosed with each third party subpoena a “non-disclosure agreement.”
- Respondent’s non-disclosure agreement attached to the subpoenas requesting information pertaining to third party subjects included language stating:
“You are hereby ordered by the Court” to provide records.
- The non-disclosure agreement attached to numerous subpoenas also contained the following language:
Please do not disclose/notify the user of the issuance of this subpoena. Disclosure to the user could impede an investigation or obstruct justice.
- The non-disclosure agreements falsely represented to the third parties that
(1) the Court authorized Respondent to obtain the requested information; (2) the recipient was compelled to provide the requested information; and (3) they were prohibited from
notifying the subject of the requested information, or anyone else, that the information had been requested.
- Respondent knew or should have known that under Pennsylvania law, written notice must be given to all parties whose information is sought by third party subpoena.
- Respondent failed to notify the parties whose personal, confidential and/or private information was subject to the subpoena that the subpoena had been issued, thus depriving them of the opportunity to object to the requested information.
- The subpoenas Respondent issued to third parties sought personal, confidential, or privileged items or information about suspects for whom there was no active criminal case pending, such as:
- telephone/cell phone records including subscriber’s personal information;
- utility and email provider information including subscriber’s personal information;
- wiring information including subscriber personal information;
- information related to particular IP address(es) or web-based accounts, including Facebook/Square/CashApp/Paypal/EbayNenmo/Craigslist, etc. accounts;
- medical and mental health records;
- records related to various online and in-person purchases;
- bank/credit card account information;
- prescription information;
- employment/personnel records;
- surveillance footage;
- information regarding various criminal investigations;
- hotel reservation details;
- insurance claim records;
- University transcripts; and
- weapon ownership records.
- Respondent knew or should have known that the subpoenas used to compel the personal, confidential and/or private information were not lawfully issued.
- Respondent knew or should have known that the request for personal, confidential and/or private information was in violation of Pennsylvania law, Federal law (including but not limited to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA)), and the Constitution.
- In hundreds of matters, Respondent received from third parties in response to the subpoenas, personal, confidential and/or private information pertaining to potential suspects and others including, inter alia:
- telephone/cell phone records including subscriber’s personal information;
- utility and email provider information including subscriber’s personal information;
- wiring information including subscriber personal information;
- information related to particular IP address(es) or web-based accounts including Facebook/Square/CashApp/Paypal/EbayNenmo/Craigslist, etc. accounts;
- medical and mental health records;
- records related to various online and in-person purchases;
- bank/credit card account information;
- prescription information;
- employment/personnel records;
- surveillance footage;
- information regarding various criminal investigations;
I. juvenile records;
- hotel reservation details;
- insurance claim records;
- University transcripts; and
- weapon ownership records.
- Respondent knew or should have known that information pertaining to miscellaneous dockets in Potter County were stored in file drawers in the Prothonotary’s office, and accessible to the public.
- Because Respondent utilized miscellaneous docket numbers on his subpoenas, once requested information was received from third parties, the subpoenas and the sensitive personal information supplied were filed and maintained in the Prothonotary’s office, and discoverable by the public.
- Respondent used the improperly obtained information from third party subpoenas to investigate and file criminal charges against individuals.
- In or about December 2022, the Court became aware of Respondent’s practice of improperly issuing subpoenas in non-active matters.
- On January 17, 2023, the Honorable Stephen P. B. Minor, President Judge for the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, issued Administrative Order 1 of 2023 (“Administrative Order”) directing, inter alia:
- The Clerk/Prothonotary shall not issue any subpoenas under the authority of the Court in a civil or criminal matter unless there is a formal proceeding filed with the Court;
- Subpoenas shall not be used to do any type of pre-complaint discovery or investigation before a matter is filed;
- Subpoenas shall not be used to obtain information which is confidential
and protected by law;
)
- Subpoenas may be used in conjunction with an Order of Court or a search warrant; and
- The use of subpoenas shall otherwise be in accordance with the Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.
- On January 18, 2023, Respondent met with the Potter County Court Administrator Jennifer Saulter and Judge Minor to address. the improperly issued subpoenas to third parties.
- During that meeting, Respondent made affirmative representations to Judge Minor that he would not use any information improperly obtained from third parties in response to the unauthorized subpoenas, in prosecuting current or future cases.
- Respondent represented to Judge Minor that he had already dismissed several pending criminal cases against individuals that were initiated based on information Respondent received in response to improperly issued third party subpoenas.
- On March 2, 2023, Respondent filed or caused to be filed, the Commonwealth’s Information in Commonwealth v. Foulkrod; CP-53-CR-0000022-2023, listing sixty-nine (69) Counts of Possession of Firearm Prohibited (“Fou/krod Information”).
- Respondent was aware that the Fou/krod Information was filed based on evidence collected in response to an improper December 22, 2022 subpoena.
- Respondent was aware that in filing the Foulkrod Information he was not in compliance with the January 17, 2023 Administrative Order.
- Respondent’s statement to Judge Minor, that he would not use any information improperly obtained from third parties in response to unauthorized subpoenas in prosecuting current or future cases, was false.
- By his conduct as alleged in paragraphs 5 through 35, above, Respondent has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
- RPC 1.1 which provides that a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. This requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation;
- RPC 3.1 which states a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or rever�al of existing law;
- RPC 3.3(a)(2) which states a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the
lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
- RPC 3.3(d) which states a lawyer shall, in an ex parte proceeding, inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse;
- RPC 3.4(d) which provides that a lawyer shall not request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party;
- RPC 4.4(a) which provides that in representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person;
- RPC 8.4(a) which states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
- RPC 8.4(c) which states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
- RPC 8.4(d) which states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that your Honorable Board appoint, pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 205, a Hearing Committee to hear testimony and receive evidence in support of the foregoing charges and upon completion of said hearing to make such findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
Thomas J. Farrell
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
By qv�fo f �a:-
Jennifer E. Tobias · Disciplinary Counsel
Attorney Registration No. 82816 Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5800
P.O. Box 62675
Harrisburg, PA 17106
