DUBOIS: Shawn Lesky, founder of DuBoisLIVE, has filed a formal request under Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law seeking documentation of professional liability (malpractice) insurance and any bond coverage carried by the City’s current solicitor and the two immediately preceding solicitor firms.
Lesky says the request is intended to provide sitting members of DuBois City Council with a clear understanding of what financial protections may exist if the City were ever to evaluate potential civil claims connected to legal advice, executive session procedures, privilege exposure, or the authorization of public funds for legal defense.
Importantly, Lesky stresses that no court has found misconduct, and the matters discussed below are being examined — not adjudicated. Whether any violation occurred remains undetermined.
What Prompted The Records Request
A federal court motion filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania describes background events in the prosecution of former City Manager John Suplizio.
The motion states investigators learned that:
-
- On May 2, 2023, DuBois Solicitor Toni Cherry brought a gift bag containing $93,920 she received from Suplizio to city leadership.
-
- Attorney William A. Shaw, Jr. attended and recorded an executive session of City Council convened to discuss that incident.
📑 Latest_Motion_02-26-2026.pdf
The filing does not accuse Cherry of criminal conduct. It provides factual context for a conflict-of-interest motion involving defense counsel.
Still, Lesky argues that the events described raise legitimate governance and ethics questions that council members — and the public — are entitled to understand fully.
Statutes Potentially Implicated — If Facts Ultimately Support Concerns
Below are relevant Pennsylvania statutes and professional rules that could theoretically apply if certain factual circumstances were proven. Again, no determination of violation has been made.
1️⃣ Pennsylvania Sunshine Act
65 Pa.C.S. § 701 et seq.
Executive sessions are governed by § 708.
Section 708(a) provides:
“An agency may hold an executive session only for one or more of the following reasons…”
The statute then lists limited permissible purposes, including litigation strategy and matters involving investigations.
The Sunshine Act further establishes public policy in § 702:
“The people of this Commonwealth do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them… The deliberations of agencies shall be conducted openly.”
If an executive session was attended by a private attorney representing an individual whose interests diverged from the municipality’s, questions could arise about whether attendance was “necessary” for the lawful purpose of the session.
However, whether a violation occurred would depend entirely on:
- The purpose of the executive session,
- Who authorized attendance,
- Whether council consented,
- Whether litigation strategy required the presence of that individual.
2️⃣ Pennsylvania Public Official And Employee Ethics Act
65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
Section 1103(a) provides:
“No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.”
Section 1102 defines “conflict of interest” as:
“Use by a public official… of the authority of his office… for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.”
If a solicitor’s actions benefited a private party at the expense of municipal interests, critics could argue this statute warrants examination. But benefit, intent, and authority would all need factual proof.
3️⃣ Pennsylvania Rules Of Professional Conduct
Municipal solicitors are attorneys bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.7 – Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients
Rule 1.7(a) states:
“A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.”
A concurrent conflict exists if:
“There is a significant risk that the representation… will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person.”
If a solicitor’s duty to the City was materially limited by obligations to another party, that could implicate Rule 1.7. Whether such a limitation occurred depends on the facts.
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality Of Information
Rule 1.6(a) provides:
“A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent…”
If confidential municipal legal strategy was exposed to outside counsel, questions of privilege and confidentiality could arise. Again, that depends on what was discussed and what authority existed.
Rule 1.13 – Organization As Client
Rule 1.13(a) clarifies:
“A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.”
In municipal law, the “client” is the City itself — not individual officials personally.
If a divergence occurred between the interests of an official and the City, Rule 1.13 requires the lawyer to protect the organization’s interests.
Rule 8.4 – Misconduct
Rule 8.4(d) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
“Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Whether any conduct rose to that level would require clear evidence and adjudication.
4️⃣ Pennsylvania Wiretap And Electronic Surveillance Control Act
18 Pa.C.S. § 5703
Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state. Section 5703 generally prohibits interception of communications without consent.
However, applicability depends on:
- Whether all participants consented,
- Whether the setting qualified as protected communication,
- Whether exceptions applied.
The federal motion confirms recording occurred but does not state whether consent was disputed.
latest_motion2-6-2026 (1)
5️⃣ Use of Public Funds for Legal Defense
Municipalities may indemnify or defend employees acting within the scope of employment.
However, authorization typically requires:
- Council approval,
- Lawful scope-of-employment determination,
- Absence of disqualifying conflicts.
If public funds were expended improperly, potential civil claims could include:
- Breach of fiduciary duty,
- Professional negligence,
- Recovery of unauthorized expenditures.
Whether that occurred remains a matter of record review, not speculation.
Why Insurance And Bond Records Matter
Professional liability insurance policies are typically “claims-made,” meaning:
- Coverage depends on when a claim is made and reported.
- Delays in notice can affect coverage.
- Policy limits cap recoverable damages.
Bond coverage may apply if statutory duties were breached.
Lesky argues that council cannot responsibly assess options without knowing:
- Coverage limits,
- Policy periods,
- Whether endorsements apply to municipal representation,
- Whether any bond exists.
Important Clarification
At this time:
- No court has found Solicitor Toni Cherry committed misconduct.
- The federal filing references factual events but does not charge her.
- The ethical and statutory issues outlined above are potential frameworks — not conclusions.
The purpose of the Right-to-Know request, Lesky says, is transparency — not accusation.
What Happens Next
Under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, the City must respond within statutory deadlines. If denied, appeal lies with the Office of Open Records.
If records show robust coverage and proper authorization, that may settle concerns. If gaps appear, council will have decisions to make.
For now, the matter remains under examination — not adjudication. Lesky said, "According to the latest government motion (to remove Shaw as council), it was made known what had long been suspected. . . that Suplizo was negotiating a plea agreement via his attorney while continuing employment with the city. . . where it should have been made clear (by Solicitor Cherry) to both council members in attendance and the mayor at the time that the city would cover his legal expenses that, if successful, would have resulted in a deal which would have been to his personal benefit after having stolen from the city. The concept of restitution is to be made whole again. In this instance, not only did Cherry knowingly oversee and participate in pushing along the necessary motions, but she did so plainly in violation of her fiduciary duty to her client. . . that being the city and all of its residents. The city paid out hundreds of thousands more. . . and separate from the now $1.5 million sum that he stands accused of stealing and/or misusing. That is not quality stewardship. That is not doing right by one's client. That's a crystal clear violation of the public trust. I call upon Mayor Abbott and council to pursue all remedies, including filing suit and seeking damages from her firm for the unnecessary expenditure of hundreds of thousands in legal fees that, in a perfect world, would continue to be found in the city's general fund today. . . but aren't."
