New Berlin Attorney Faces Recommended Suspension, Disciplinary Board Records Show

Public records on the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board's website show that a Hearing Committee has issued a Report and Recommendation concerning Daryl Alan Yount, a New Berlin attorney registered with the Pennsylvania bar under ID number 325043. The docket entries, which are publicly accessible through the Disciplinary Board's online system, confirm the committee's report exists, though the full substance of its recommended disposition had not been independently confirmed as of publication.

The article's headline references a recommended three-month suspension, a figure that appears in public docket records associated with Yount's case but which could not be fully verified from the available documents before deadline. The specific charges underlying the disciplinary proceeding, the hearing dates, and the composition of the Hearing Committee assigned to Yount's matter were not available in the public materials reviewed for this report.

Under Pennsylvania's attorney discipline system, a Hearing Committee plays a defined but limited role. The committee takes evidence, holds hearings, and produces a Report and Recommendation that includes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed disposition. Critically, a Hearing Committee itself imposes no discipline. Its recommendation goes to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which conducts its own de novo review and may dismiss the charges, impose a private reprimand directly, or forward a recommendation for more severe sanctions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which functions as the petitioner in formal disciplinary proceedings, initiates the process by preparing a Petition for Discipline that sets out specific misconduct charges. That document is filed with the Board Prothonotary, and the respondent attorney has 20 days to reply. From there, the matter proceeds to a Hearing Committee, which hears evidence before producing its report.

Once a Hearing Committee issues its report, both the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the respondent attorney may file Briefs on Exceptions with the Disciplinary Board, followed by briefs opposing the other party's exceptions. Either side may also request oral argument before the Board. If the Board ultimately recommends a sanction more serious than a private reprimand, the matter goes to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which issues the final order.

Possible outcomes at the conclusion of the process include dismissal, an informal admonition, a private reprimand, a public reprimand, or, in more serious cases, suspension or disbarment imposed by the Supreme Court.

Yount has not responded publicly to the proceedings, and no comment was available before publication. The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board's public docket remains the primary source for updates on the matter's status as it moves through the adjudication process.