Philadelphia County Court
PHILADELPHIA – A plaintiffs lawyer punished by judges around the state who admitted he “bit off more than I can chew” after leaving his old firm has been disbarred.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday took away Seth Carson’s ability to practice law, four months after the Philadelphia federal court disbarred him from that court. After leaving the Derek Smith Law Group, which handles employment discrimination cases, Carson routinely missed court-ordered deadlines, failed to pay a $30,000 sanction and put a homeless client up in a hotel, creating a conflict of interest.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District found problems in more than 30 cases and that Carson failed to justify them. At a hearing in July, Carson was asked why he didn’t bother filing a brief to explain his actions.
“Remarkably,” the court wrote, “he then said that he had prepared a 25-page brief, but had declined to submit it because ‘filing a brief like that is kind of scary,’” the court wrote.
Carson also faces a lawsuit by Derek Smith Law Group, where he worked from 2018-24. The case accuses him of misappropriating firm funds, among other financial misconduct.
Tasty Baking Company complained in a case filed against it by Carson that he would not turn over his client’s medical records despite repeated reminders. After being ordered to do so and respond to discovery requests last year, he failed to, which drew the anger of Judge Jerry Pappert.
“Mr. Carson, it’s very frustrating,” Pappert told him at a hearing. “It’s very frustrating. Practicing law should not be this way.”
Pappert ordered him to pay Tasty more than $32,000. He was to use the $2,000 he obtained in fees when the case settled and pay the rest in two $15,000 installments but after failing to, Pappert held him in contempt and referred him to the district’s chief judge for possible action by its discipline committee.
In another case, he acknowledged paying for a client’s living expenses, which included a hotel room. As the disciplinary proceedings played out, more of his behavior was unearthed – though he initially told the panel he didn’t think he had ever been sanctioned by the other federal courts he was licensed to practice in – the Western and Middle districts and the Third Circuit.
The next day, the panel learned of 22 cases – some in those courts – in which Carson had been sanctioned.
“There has been a history of dilatoriness on the part of [Carson] in this case,” one judge wrote in 2024.
“The one item of discovery that the plaintiff produced before the [defendants’] sanctions motion was filed (the initial disclosure) was produced nine months after it was due. Other discovery requests were not complied with at all prior to the filing of the sanctions motion.
“Thus, this is not just a case of dilatoriness; it is a case of repeated failure to produce required materials amounting to almost complete nonresponsiveness.”
His issues harmed clients, the panel wrote, with some of them being dismissed after he failed to respond to motions.
“In these circumstances, it is evident that a reprimand or suspension would be inadequate to protect the public or maintain the integrity of the legal profession,” it added. “Unfortunately, only his disbarment will secure these goals.”
