The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a district court decision in *John M. Kerr v. Kathryn Peifer Morgan, ESQ.*, et al., involving a Pennsylvania attorney whose legal career has been marked by repeated criminal convictions and disciplinary violations.
John Kerr's troubled legal history began in the 1980s when he was convicted of more than 100 crimes, including selling jobs and bribery, while serving as a high official in the Pennsylvania Auditor General's office. Those convictions resulted in a 17-month prison sentence and his disbarment in 1988.
Despite this criminal history, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated Kerr's law license in 2007. The court's decision was based on Kerr's apparent expressions of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his past conduct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court characterized him as a person of "integrity and honesty" at the time of reinstatement.
The reinstatement proved premature. In 2018, Kerr faced new disciplinary charges for siphoning money from his client trust account for personal use. The Pennsylvania bar suspended him in 2019 following these allegations of financial misconduct involving client funds.
The pattern of misconduct continued, leading to more severe consequences. In 2025, the Pennsylvania bar's disciplinary hearing committee recommended permanently disbarring Kerr, citing his history of "egregious professional misconduct." That recommendation remains pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The financial impact of Kerr's misconduct extended beyond his own legal troubles. After his suspension, the Pennsylvania Lawyers' Fund for Client Security was forced to reimburse several of Kerr's former clients almost $35,000 for money that he had improperly taken from their accounts.
The Third Circuit's opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Bibas, opened with pointed commentary about attorneys who fail to reform despite being given second chances. "Despite second chances, wayward lawyers sometimes return to their old ways," Judge Bibas wrote in the nonprecedential opinion.
The case came before the Third Circuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Jennifer P. Wilson had presided over the original proceedings. The defendants in the case included several legal professionals and officials: Kathryn Peifer Morgan, Esq., Barbara E. Griffin, Esq., George P. Hartwick III, William J. Joyce, and Bruce S. Zero, among others.
The Third Circuit panel, which included Circuit Judges Bibas, Porter, and Bove, heard the case on the same day it issued its decision, Jan. 26, 2026. The expedited timeline suggests the court viewed the matter as straightforward given the extensive factual record of Kerr's disciplinary history.
The opinion represents the latest chapter in what the court characterized as a pattern of professional misconduct spanning decades. Kerr's case illustrates the challenges facing disciplinary authorities when dealing with attorneys who reoffend after receiving opportunities for rehabilitation.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2007 decision to reinstate Kerr's license, despite his extensive criminal history, now appears to have been an error in judgment. The court's characterization of Kerr as possessing "integrity and honesty" stands in stark contrast to his subsequent conduct involving client funds.
The case also highlights the role of client protection funds in mitigating the harm caused by attorney misconduct. The Pennsylvania Lawyers' Fund for Client Security's payment of nearly $35,000 to affected clients demonstrates the financial burden that attorney misconduct places on the legal profession as a whole.
Kerr's situation raises broader questions about the standards and procedures for attorney reinstatement following serious criminal convictions. The case suggests that expressions of remorse and acceptance of responsibility may not be sufficient indicators of genuine rehabilitation, particularly for attorneys with extensive criminal histories.
The Third Circuit's nonprecedential opinion means that while the decision resolves this particular case, it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. However, the court's strong language about "wayward lawyers" who return to misconduct despite second chances may influence how other courts view similar cases involving repeat offender attorneys.
As Kerr's permanent disbarment recommendation awaits final action by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, his case serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of professional rehabilitation and the importance of protecting clients from attorneys with histories of misconduct. The ultimate resolution of his disciplinary proceedings will likely determine whether he faces a second permanent disbarment, effectively ending his legal career.