By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, attorney Michael Brandon Cohen pleaded guilty to two counts of forging the signature of a United States district judge. Cohen, a licensed attorney, fabricated court orders in a civil case, falsely claiming they were issued by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann. These fraudulent orders, sent to Cohen’s client, ruled in the client’s favor. Cohen admitted to forging the judge’s signature, and his sentencing is scheduled for November 18, 2025, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Read the original article here
Pennsylvania lawyer pleads guilty to forging the signature of a U.S. district judge, and it’s safe to say this is not a good look for the legal profession, or for this particular lawyer. The action itself is, of course, deeply unethical and illegal, but the fact that it involves a U.S. district judge – someone held in high esteem within the legal community – adds another layer of gravity. This situation raises all sorts of questions, and from what I can gather, the reaction is pretty much universal: this was a monumentally bad decision.
The poor client, likely the immediate victim of this egregious breach of ethics, is now in a terrible situation. They’re stuck with a lawyer who has now admitted to a serious crime, and everything related to their case is now cast into doubt. Any legal strategy or agreement handled by this lawyer is now potentially tainted, and the client is left to clean up the mess. It’s a worst-case scenario for anyone seeking legal representation, especially since this incident potentially invalidates any actions the lawyer took on their behalf.
One immediate concern, which is probably on everyone’s mind, is the impact on the client’s original case. Could this forgery affect the client’s standing or their prospects in a pending legal action? The good news is that this sort of thing creates fertile ground for an appeal, assuming the client had a legitimate claim in the first place. The client can quite rightly say, “Judge, my previous lawyer is a felon,” which will likely give them an advantage in their legal proceeding.
Speaking of the client, the focus now shifts toward potential legal avenues available to them. From the limited information available, it’s almost certain the client will have the grounds to sue this lawyer for malpractice, and for fraud. The malpractice claim is perhaps the most straightforward, as the lawyer’s actions directly harmed the client. This opens the door to a claim for damages related to the lawyer’s misconduct.
Further, the potential recourse available to the client may involve compensation. If the lawyer had malpractice insurance, then the client might be able to recover damages through that policy. The insurance is largely designed to cover instances where a lawyer’s actions cause harm to their clients. This helps the client to recover financial losses that would be the direct result of their attorney’s misconduct.
And what exactly did the lawyer hope to gain from forging a judge’s signature? It’s tough to say without knowing the specifics of the case. However, the act of forgery alone indicates a deliberate attempt to deceive and manipulate the legal process, making it clear that the lawyer’s primary aim was to get away with something, either for their own gain or for the benefit of the client.
There’s a sense of disappointment among those observing this case. This lawyer, through his actions, has not only hurt his client, but also has tarnished the reputation of the entire profession. His actions reflect badly on all lawyers. This could possibly cause people to distrust legal professionals in general, which, in turn, could undermine the public’s faith in the justice system itself.
Also, this incident brings up the important topic of the statute of limitations. Basically, if the client has a cause of action against the defendant, they can no longer pursue the lawsuit, assuming the statute of limitations has passed. This is a really bad piece of news. The statute of limitations places a deadline on the amount of time that a lawsuit can be filed after the incident has happened.
Ultimately, this case is a sad example of how a professional, sworn to uphold the law, has instead chosen to break it. The guilty plea is probably a good thing, and shows that the system is, in the end, working. The lawyer will now face the consequences of his actions, hopefully paving the way for justice for the client. The situation illustrates the importance of ethics, accountability, and the need for transparency in the legal profession.