Pennsylvania lawyer pleads guilty to forging signature

Summary
A Pennsylvania lawyer, Michael Brandon Cohen, 41, from Hollidaysburg, pled guilty on July 25, 2025 in federal court to two counts of forging the signature of Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann. The forgeries appeared on fake court orders sent in May and October 2022, claiming favorable rulings in a civil suit—none of which were ever filed. Cohen faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $500,000, or both. His sentencing is scheduled for November 18, 2025. (turn0search1, turn0search0)

Key Facts

• Misrepresentation of legal filing: Cohen falsely told a client that he had filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on their behalf. In reality, no legal action had been taken against the healthcare company.
• Fabrication of court orders: He created and sent forged documents purporting to be official court orders signed electronically by Judge Brann. These falsely awarded sanctions and fees to the victim. (turn0search1)
• Legal practice license status: At the time, Cohen was licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in federal court. He has since been disbarred.
• Sentencing parameters: Sentencing will consider the severity of the offense under federal sentencing guidelines, which include potential restitution or compensation to the defrauded client. The standard maximum is 10 years in prison, a $500,000 fine, or both. (turn0search1)

Implications & Broader Context

1. Legal and ethical boundary violation
   Forgery of judicial signatures strikes at the core of legal integrity, undermining trust in victims, courts, and legal representation.
2. Risk to clients and malpractice exposure
   The affected client likely suffered reputational and financial harm by relying on false documents. This opens channels for malpractice litigation, restitution claims, and further sanctions.
3. Professional consequences
   Disbarment is likely permanent given the conviction. A felony record will severely limit any future legal or professional practice opportunities.
4. Potential ripple effect in legal community
   Other legal professionals may face increased scrutiny—and clients may become more cautious—over verification of court filings and attorney communication.
5. Need for systemic oversight
   Cases like this reinforce calls for stronger oversight on electronic signature authentication, client billing transparency, and timely auditable filings within state bar systems.

Summary Table