Case Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Witherell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 139980

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In the matter of a Member of the
Bar of the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware:

No. 154,2010

Board Case No. 2009-0007-B
ANDREW J. WITHERELL,

Respondent.

‘Submitted: April 6, 2010
Decided: June 30, 2010

Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER

This 30* day of June 2010, it appears to the Court that the Board on
Professional Responsibility has filed its Report and Recommendation of Sanctions
in this matter pursuant to Rule 9(d) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure, Neither the respondent nor the Office of Disciplinary
‘Counsel has filed objections to the Board’s Report. The Court has reviewed the
matter pursuant to Rule 9(¢) and concludes that the Board's Report should be
approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1) The Report of the Board of Professional Responsibility filed on March 22,

2010 (copy attached) is hereby APPROVED.
2) Respondent is publicly reprimanded for his violations of Rules 1.15(d),
8.4(c) (two counts) and Rule 8.4(d) (three counts).

3) Respondent shall serve a public two-year period of probation from the
date of this Order, subject to the following terms:

(a) Respondent shall have an audit by a licensed certified public accountant
for his Certificates of Compliance, reporting the status of his compliance or lack
thereof with the requirements of Rule 1.15 and Rule 1.5(a) and shall file each
annual Certificate of Compliance by no later than the due date;

(b) Respondent shall also provide the ODC with a timely written
confirmation that he has filed each Annual Certificate of Compliance with the
required pre-certification;

(©) Respondent shall cooperate fully and promptly with the ODC in its
efforts to monitor compliance with his probation, including any audit performed at
the request of the ODC or otherwise;

(@) Respondent shall also cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of any
allegations of any unprofessional conduct that may come to the attention of the
ope;

(©) Upon request of the ODC, the Respondent shall provide authorization for
the release of information and documentation to verify compliance with these

conditions;
(f) Respondent shall pay the cost of this disciplinary proceeding pursuant to
procedural Rule 27 promptly upon being presented with a statement of these costs

by the ODC. The costs to be paid by Respondent will include, without Ii

 

ion,
the costs of the follow-up audits; and

(g) Respondent shall meet with the Professional Guidance Committee for
assistance and guidance in managing his solo practice of law and he shall complete
1 minimum of six hours of continuing legal education addressing law office
management and maintenance of books and records, no later than the due date for

filing of his 2011 Certificate of Compliance.

BY THE COURT:

(sL Jack B. Jacobs:
Justice
ATTACHMENT
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Inthe Mater of »
Member of the Bar of CONFIDENTIAL,

the Supeeme Coun of

Delaware: Board Case No.: 2009-0007.

ANDREW J. WITHERELL,
Respondent.

TUE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SANCTIONS

‘This is the Repon and Recommendation of Sanctions of the Board on Professional

 

Responsibility of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the “Board”) in the above-
captioned mater. A Wearing on this matter was held on January 13, 2010, i the Supreme Court
Hearing Room, 11th Floor, Carvel Stato Building, 820 North French Street, Wilmington,
Delaware. the Panel ofthe Board consisted of Emilie R. Ninan, Fsquie, Adele Asblcy-Axon,
M.D. and Mark L. Reardon, Esquire (Chait) (collectively the “Pancl”). ‘The Office of
Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC”) was represented by Patricia B. Schwartz, Fsquire and Frederick
'W. Jobst, Esquire. Respondent, Andrew J. Witherell ("Respondent") was represcrted by Chasles
Slanina, Usquite and Ben T. Castle, Esquire
1. Brocedura History

‘The ODC filed a Petition for Discipline (the “Peition”) with the Board on December 2,
2009. The Petition was subsequently approved by a panel of the Preliminary Review
‘Committe. As set forth in more detail below, ODC asserted in the Petition that Respondent
violated the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct ("the Rules"). Specifically, ODC alleged
Respondcat violated Rule 1.15(, 5.4(c) (wo counts), and Rule BAA) (hee counts). The
Respondent filed a respons tothe ODC’s Patton on December 23,2008, On January 13,2010,
Respondent filed an Amended Answer udmitting all counts of the Petition, and the Amended
‘Answer was formally entered on the docket on March 18,2010.

The recordin this case consists of: (1) the Petition; (2) the Answer and Amended
“Answer; and, (3) the iransrit othe January 13,2010, Hearing and exhibits adminedthersin.
During the hearing, Respondent testified on his own behalf.

M, Fastual Findings

1. The Respondent isa member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Cour of Delaware. te
was admitted to the Bar in 1994. At all times relevant to the Petition for Discipline, Respondent
was engaged in the private practice of law as solo practitioner in Wilmington, Delaware.
(Amended Answer ai 1). Respondent's practice is concentrated primarily in criminal defense.
Gran,

2. Delaware lawyers are obliged to file an annual Registration Statement with the
Supreme Coun of Delaware (the “Court"). The Registration Stalcment includes a Cette of,
Compliance. by which the lawyer cerifes 10 the Cour the lawyer is properly maining the
law practice's books and records in compliance with the specific requirements of the Rules. The
Court expects lawyers completing the Certificate of Compliance will undertake the appropriate
review and inguity nto matters involving thir law practice books and records so as to enable
lawyers accurately to answer all of the items identified on the Cerificate. (Amended Answer at

»,

 

"The wanseit ofthe Jamunry 13,2010 Hearing wil ected herein

 
3. On Monday, September 8, 2008, the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection
CLFCP*, provided the ODC with a report (“Audit Report 1") concerning a compliance audit
conducted atthe Respondent's law office in July 2008 by the LECP auditor. The audit covered
the six (6) month period ending April 30, 2008. (November 2007-April 2008). (Amended
‘Answer at 2)
4. The audit report outlined several deficiencies in the Respondent's law practice

books and records under Rul 1.15(d). The deficiencies have been enumerated as follows:

(#) The Respondent's 2006 and 2007 federal, state and local tax returns had
not been filed and the taxes due had not been paid.
‘Operating Account #2837-3910

(b) ‘The account was incoretly titled

(©) The Respondent could not provide bank statements, hank reconciliations,
‘cash receipt journals, or cash disbursement journals forthe month of January 2008,

(@) There were twenty-six overdraft balances in the account during November
2007-April 2008,

(©) The Respondent's cash reccipts journal and cash disbursements journal
failed to include monthly totals forthe time period reviewed, November 2007-April 2008.

(®) The cash receipts entries could not be proved to deposit totals on the bank
statements for the time period reviewed, November 2007-April 2008

(G) The Respondent failed to prepare bank reconciliations forthe time period
reviewed, November 2007-April 2008.
Trust Acgount #2837-3929

(t) ‘The Respondent's eash receipts journal and cash dishursements journal for
the month of November 2007 did not have monthly totals.

(The Respondent did not prepare bank reconciliations or a list of
‘outstanding checks for the time period reviewed, November 2007-April 2008.

The Respondent di not prepare a client subsidiary ledger during the time
period reviewed, November 2007-April 2008.

(k) It. could not be determined if any attorney funds were in the account since
the account had not been reconciled.

() ‘The reconciled end-of-month cash balance could not be agreed tothe total
Of all client funds held because neither report was prepared for the time period reviewed. ‘the
difference between the bank stalement balance and the register balance from the accounting
system ranged from $9,972.25 tw $14,872.25 for the time period reviewed, November 2007-
April 2008.

(m) The Respondent failed to prepare a monthly listing of client balances
during the time period reviewed, November 2007-April 2008,

(0) The Respondent failed to provide retainer agrocments for two out of five

 

s selected for esting. The Respondent could not provide the statement provided to tients
showing the amount withdrawn from a retainer and the remaining balance of the retainer forthe

Five payments selected for testing.
5. For each of the areas of non-compliance identified in paragraph 4 above, the
Respondent certified on his 2006, 2007, and 2008 Ceriicates of Compliance that he was in
compliance. (Amended Answer at 5) These responses were false. Id.

6 The Respondent advised the LFCP Auditor the deficiencies would be resolved
and by leer dated January 21, 2008, the Respondent, through counsel, advised the ODC the
accounts were reconciled and a follow-up audit could be scheduled. (Amended Answer aS).

7. The LECP Auditor conducted a follow-up audit on May 12, 2009. A copy ofthe
audit was provided to the ODC (Audit Report If) The audit covered the six-month period
ending March 31, 2009 (“October 2008-March 2009")

8. With respect to Audit Repor Il the following deficiencies were nated

(2) The Respondent had fil all ux retums for 2006 and 2007, bt sill owed
‘money on his state and federal returns,
‘Operating Account #2837-3910

(b) The account continued o be incorrectly sted.

(©) There were twenty-three overdraft balances in the account during the time
period reviewed, October 2008-March 2009.

(@) The Respondent's cash receipts journal and cash disbursements journal
were combined on the reconciliation

(©) The reconciled end-of-month bank balance did not agree to the register
balance, The difference between the reconciled bank balance and the register balance ranged
from $855.12 t0 $19,991.70 during the time period reviewed, October 2008 ~ March 2008.
‘Trust Acepont 42837-3929

(0) ‘The Respondent's cash reccipts journal and cash disbursements journal
‘were combined on the reconciliation.

(@) According to the client funds list, the account had a negative balance
ranging from -$48,945.50 to $60,945.50. In addition, an “unknown” amount carried a negative
balance of $119,808.43 for each month during the period reviewed, October 2008 - March 2009.
(Amended Answer at 6)

(hy ‘The reconciled end-of-month cash balance did not agree to the total of ll,
‘client funds hold. ‘The difference between the reconciled bank statement halance and the register
balance from the accounting system was $1,566.10 for every month in the time period reviewed,
‘October 2008 - March 2009.

(i) The attomey’s client funds tis
“which appear to include fees earned by the attorney.

The Respondent could not provide retainer ugreements for four ofthe five
payments selected for testing. The Respondent could not provide the statement provided to

 

is had negative balances and old balances,

clients showing the amount withdrawn from a retainer and the remaining balance ofthe retainer
forthe five payments selected for testing. (Amended Answer at 7)

9. Because of the continuing deficiencies, the LFCP Auditor conducted a second
{follow-up audit on September 16, 2009. A copy of the audit was provided to the ODC (“Ault
Report III"). ‘The audit covered the six-month period ending August 31, 2009 (“March 2009
‘August 20097), (Amended Answer at 7).

10. With respect to Audit Report Il the following deficiencies were noted:
(2) The Respondent reported that ll tx filings were up to date, but he still
cowed money on his federal returns.
Operating Aesount 42837-3910

(b) ‘There were twenty-six overdraft balunees inthe account during the time
period reviewed, March 2008 - August 2008,

(©) The Respondents cash receipes journal and cash disbursements journal
‘were combined onthe reconeilaion

(©) The reconciled end-of-month bank balance did not agree to the register
balance. The difference between the reconciled bank balance and the reyister balance ranged
from -$! 71.32 to $304.69 during the time period reviewed, March 2009 - August 2009.
Trams Account #2837-3929

©) The reconciled end-of-month cash balance didnot agree tothe wl of all
lien funds held. The difference between the reconcile hank statement balance and the register
‘balance from the accounting system was $70.64 for every month in the time period reviewed,
March 2009 - August 2009

(Q_ The attorney's clicnt funds lists had negative balances and old balances,
which appeared to include Fes earned by the attomey

(@) The Respondent could not provide reaner agreements for four of the five
Payments selected for testing. The Respondent could not provide the statement provided to
‘liens showing the amount withdrawn from a retainer and the remaining balance of the retsiner
for the five payments selected for testing. (Amended Answer at 7-8). With respect to
Respondent's admitted violations the Panc! acknowledges there is ag evidence that any client
‘was directly harmed and, no evidence that any client complained about Respondent's fee
collection or bookkeeping practices. (Tr. at 20).

UL, Admitted v4

 

COUNT ONE: RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS,
IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15¢d)

11. Rule 1.15(d) sets fort detailed and specific requirements for the maintenance of

 

attorney's books and records and handling of pracice-related funds

 

12, Respondent admitted that he failed to properly maintain his books and records in
violation of Rule 1.15(¢) including as follows: (1) no client subsidiary ledger was maintained;
(2) monthly totals in client receipt and disbursement joumals were not calculated; (3) the
reconciled end-of-month cash balance in the fiduciary funds account did not agree to the total of
al clont funds; (4 there were multiple overdraft balances in his nonfiduciary funds account for
‘every period reviewed: (5) there was not monthly listing of client balances for the fiduciary
funds accounts; and, (6) Respondent could not provide bank statements, bank reconciliations,
‘ash receipt journals and cash disbursement journals for the month of January 2008.
COUNT'TWO: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT _ INVOLVING
DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION IN
VIOLATION OF RULE 840)
13, Rule 8.4(¢) provides itis professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, au, deceit, or mistepeesenation.”
14, Respondent admited that he violated Rule $.4(c) by filing with the Supreme
Court Cenificates of Compliance in years 2006, 2007, and 2008. each of which contained
misrepresentations to the Court relating to the Respondent's maintenance of his law office books
and records
COUNTTHRER: | RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE.

8d)
15. Rule 8.4(4) provides it is professional misconduct for a lawyer

 

 

engage in
conduct that is prejudicial 1 the administration of justice.” ‘The Delaware Supreme Court relies
pon the representations made by attomeys in the Certificates of Compliance filed with their
‘Annual Registration Statements each year in the administration of justice governing the practice
of law in Delaware

16, Respondent admits that be

 

a £42) by Hing withthe Supreme Cou
Cenifnes of Compliance fr 2006. 2007, and 2008, ech of which conned
inept the Cou elaine Regents miner isl fs books
smi vont
COUNTFOUR: RFSPONDENT ENGAGED. IN CONDUCT INVOLVING
DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION IN
MOLATION GF RULE 8a)
17. Rade 840) provides ie profsonl micondd for a lwp to “egg in
cond insving shoes ud decir miseprsriaon
1 Respond ited tate ile Rule (6) by fling wth he Sapeme
Coun Cents of Compliance in yeas 200, 2007, and 2008, cach of which conned
misrepresent the Coun retin othe Respondo'eligaton olan py fea
sate nd ce es
COUNT FIVE: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE
19, le 840) roves iti professional misconduct fr lye 10 “ena in

‘conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice” The Delaware Supreme Court relies
‘upon representations made by atiomeys in the Certificates of Compliance fled with their Annual
Registration Statements each year in the administration of justice goveming the practice of law
in Delaware.

20, Respondent admitted he violated Rule 8.4(4) by fal

 

sy file and pay

 

federal, state and local income taxes forthe years 2006 and 2007.

COUNTSIX: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE
84a)

21. Rule 8448) provides it is professional misconduct for & lawyer to “engage in
conduct that is prejudicial othe administration of justice.” The Delaware Supreme Cour relies
‘pon the representations made by attorneys in the Certificates of Compliance filed with their
“Annual Registration Statements cach yearn the administration of justice governing the proctice
of law in Delaware

22. Respondent admitted he violated Rule 8.4(d) by filing with the Supreme Court

Cent

 

wes of Compliance for 2006, 2007, and 2008, each of which contained
imisepresentations fo the Court relating tothe Respondents obligations to file and pay federal,
state and local axes.

1V, Standard of Proof and Finding of the Pane!

Allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the ODC’s Petition for Discipline

 

‘must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Rule 15, Disciplinary Procedure Rules. In
view of the Respondent's admission io all of the counts in the Petition, the ODC has met its

burden of proof, Therefore. the Panel is left to recommend proper sanctions for Respondent's
admitted violations of the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 943), Disciplinary
Procedure Rules,
v. tion for San

Jn recommending proper sanctions for Respondent's admitted conduct, the Pan! is
guided by a well-established framework for analysis:

The objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system are to protect the public,
{0 protect the administration of justice. 10 preserve confidence in the legal
profession, and to deter other lawyers {rom similar misconduct. To further these
‘objectives and to promote consistency and predictability in the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions, the Court looks to the ABA Standards for imposing
Lawyer Sanctions as a model for determining the appropriate discipline warranted
under the circumstances in each case. The ABA framework consists of four key
factors to be considered by the Court: (a) the ethical duty violated: (b) the
lawyer's mental state; (c) the extent of the actual oF potential injury caused by the
lawyer's misconduct; and (4) aggravating and mitigating factors. in re Batley
421 A 2d 851, 866; see also In re Fountain, 878 A.2d 1167. 1173 (Del. 2005)

 

 

Following the Panel's review of the evidenee, the testimony of Respondent, and
‘argument of counsel. the Panel considered each ofthe four prongs. Aer review of the first three
factors, the Panel considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine if an
{nerease o decrease in the sanction is warranted. /n re Steiner 817 A.2d 793, 796 (Del. 2003)
‘The Pane!'s four-prong assessment is summarized ws follows:
1. Ethical Duties Violated

‘As previously elaborated, ODC alleged and Respondent admitted that the
Respondent committed misconduct in violation of Professional Rules of Conduct 1.15(4) (failure
10 properly maintain financial books and records), 8.4(¢) (engaging in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit oF misrepresentation) (two counts), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is
prcjuicial to the administration of justice goveming the practice of law in Delaware) (three
counts).

Under the ABA standards, this misconduct constitutes violations of duties owed by
Respondent to clients under Rules 1.15 and $.4(c) and violations owed by Respondent tothe
legal system (Rule 84(4)), See ABA Standard 6.0, As a result ofthese admited violations,
numerous ABA Standards for imposing lawyer sanctions (the “ABA Standards") were evaluated
to determine the appropriate sanction.

2 ‘The Lawver's Mental State

Under the ABA Standards, “mental stat” is defined by levels of culpability. The
‘most culpable mental state i “intent,” whichis when a lawyer acts with the conscious objective
F purpose wo accomplish a particular objective, The next most culpable mental state is
“knowledge.” which is when a lawyer acts with conscious awareness ofthe nature of atendant
cireumsuinces of his conduct without the conscious objective or purpose 10 accomplish a
panicular result The least culpable mental sae is “nepligence.” which is when a lawyer fils to
become aware of a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which
failure isa deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable awyer would exercise in the

situation. Sce ABA Standards at 6. Respondent asserts he acted negligently (Tr. at 22)

 

intended to make a fraudulent statement to the Court (Tr. at 19}. The ODC contends that

Respondents failure 10 maintain his nancial books and records appropriately was more than
‘mere negligence, and that Respondent instead acted with knowledge in that there was a sustained
and systematic disregard to his obligations to maintain books and records. (Tr. at 29)

2
‘The Pane! finds the Respondent acted with “knowledge” in that Respondent was
consciously aware of his obligations to properly manage a law office and accurately report to the
Court in the Annual Cerificate of Compliance. In suppor of this finding, the Panel considered

 

for the thee years prio wo the July 2008 LEFCP audi, Respondent in 2006, 2007, and 2008
attempicd to maintain and manage the books and recond keeping of his law practice without the
benefit of a bookkeeper, office manager or accountant. (Tr. at 17). In December 2008 or
Janvary 2006, Respondent terminated a cenified public accountant upon whom he previously
rslied to maintain his books and records in compliance with the Rules established by the
Delaware Supreme Cour. (Tr. at 16). The basis for Respondent's termination of his cenified
Public accountant was Respondent's displeasure with the accuracy ofthe work by his CPA and

the consequential billing expense. (Te. at 17). Respondent's decision to terminate his CPA

 

coupled with his decision to proceed in maintaining his books and records without the assistance

 

of staff or a replacement CPA conclusively establishes Respondent acted “with knowledge.
admission to “procrastination” in managing his financial affairs also establishes that he knew of
his financial reporting obligations but delayed in meeting them. (Tr. at 22). Respondent's
‘explanation that his procrastination in taking care of his Finn's books and records was caused by
his dedication to his busy law practice (Tr. at 14-15) and family obligations (Tr. at 21) is
admirable, but unpersuasive inthis context

Respondent also demonstrated by his testimony a relative indifference to his obligations
to comply with Rule 1.15 for mainiaining proper books and records and Rule 8.4(4) when
‘making representations to the Court about his Certificate of Compliance. For instance, his

langwers to specific questions in the 2007 Certificate of Compliance are incomplete,
contradictory or simply inaccurate. (Fr. at 2425). Respondents approach to his reporting
obligations demonstrated a level of inference that falls well shor ofthe required conduc in
Detaware

‘ter reviewing the evienes. the Panel finds tht Respondent possessed the requisite
Anowledge in that he was aware of

 

responibilies io muntin books and records and
reporting obligations, and he was aware his action and inaction wou form the basis for the
violation set forth above. The Panel concludes that he Respondent acted wih a sustaincd and
systematic darogard with espct this reporting obligations regarding his law office books and
records and his tx filing obligations. As in Stl the Panel here finds Respondent's conduct
ith resp to portng obligation abe a “head-in-the-sand” approsch
5 Tw Actal ions Cas bo .
The Panct readily acknowedyes no

 

was harmed by his: misconduct
Noneieless, Respondent's misconduct volte hit dues to the legal systemn and 10 the
profession. Although no actual injury rested, Responden's misconduct is sigificant AS the
Supreme Court has sated, [a lawytr's duty to maintain proper books and records exists fr the
purpose of protecting not ony the lawyer but the lawyers clients, and the failure offi that
duty presents serious risks to the lawyers clients, cven if no actual harm results.” In re Benson,
774 A.24 288. 262-63 (Del. 2001)

Under ABA Standard 7.3, a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in
conduct that is a violation of » duty owed as a professional and causes little or no injury or
pent injury to client the public, oF the legal sytem, and the purpose ofthe lawyer
discipline wil be best served by imposing public sanction that hips edvete the lawyer and
dsr fur violations.

Asin Ine Stull. 209 WL 4373243 (Del Sup). the Pano here finds the Couns analysis
in In re Benson 774.24 288, 262-264 (Del 2001) instructive. In Benson he Supreme Court
found that Benson violated duties owed o her clients by fling to properly mainiain her Books
and records. She also violated duties owed tothe legl system and tothe profession by cectfying
to the Supreme Court for thee conscitive year that her books and records were in compliance
when infact er books were notin compliance. While the Coun acceped the Boar's finding
that Benson's misconduct was not intentional, the Court noted that it was “concermed thal her
spparet inatentiveness to her obligations 10 the Court.continsed for 30. many years”
Moreover, the Court found that even though Wenson’s violins did ot result in any injury to
her lint, her earles record keeping had the potential o caus injury Because of the ditcuiy
‘in ascersining that al client funds in fat were being properly maintained

‘The Court in Benson specifically sated:

In our view, « public sanction will deter other

clearly failed to exercise the required care and
attention in making her annual certifications
Benson, 774 A.2d at 262-63,
‘As stated above, and consistent with Sill and Benson, a public sanction affords the Court,

‘the opportunity to underscore how serious the Court considers « lawyer's obligation 19 maintain
‘orderly books and records. ‘The Panel finds tata public sanction inthis instance wil also serve
48 an imponant preveniave measure in situations such as this whers the violations could be
‘readily repeated without prompt detection. A pubic sanction also puts clients on notice of past,
problems and allows them to take any necessary steps o protect their own interest
4 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
ABA Standards Section 9.1 provides that aggravating (Section 9.22) and
mitigating (Section 9.32) circumstances should also be considered, to increase of decrease the
degree of discipline to be imposed. Inre Bailey, 821 A.2d 451, 966 (2003).
‘The ageravating factors to be considered are:
A. rior Disciplinary Offenses
“Thee is no evidence inthe record tha this aguravating factor exis
8. Dishonest or Selfish Motive
“There is no evidence inthe record that his aggravating factor exits.
atten of Misconduct
This aggravating factor is found to exist with respect to the admitted

 

Violations identified above
D. Multiple Offenses
This factor is found with respect to the Respondent admitting to have
Violated six counts of professional misconduct
©. Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Process
There it no evidence in the record hat his aggravating factor exits.
F, Submission of False Evidence or False Statements During the

Disciplinary Process

There it no evidence in the record tha his aggravating actor exis
G. Refural tp Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct
‘There is evidence in the record to demonstrate that Respondent has

 

recognized the wrongful nature of his conduct by engaging a Cerified Public Accountant in
order

 

nthe future his books und records willbe properly maintained and his axes properly
filed, (1.9122). AL ihe same time, the Pane acknowledges that Respondent's testimony during
the January 13,2010, Hearing did not demonstrate that he fully appreciated the seriousness of his
admiued violations. As @ result of this observation by the Panel, some additional sanetion
rumely a period of probation, is warranted in order 1 avoid Respondent lapsing to the
lackadaisical atte that precipitated his now admitied violations.
Hi. Vulnerability of Vietim
‘There is no evidence inthe record tha this aggravating factor exits
J. Sabstantial Experience inthe Practice of Law
There is evidence of Respondent's substantial experince in the practice of
lave. He was admited as a member of the Bar in 1996, and has been engaged inthe private
practice of aw for icen years
4. Indifference to Making Restitution
“There is no evidence inthe reord that this aggravating factor exists
K. Megat Conduct, Including that Involving the use of

‘Controlled Substance

‘There is no evidence in the record that this aggravating factor exist,

 
‘With respect to mitigating factors, the Panel considered the following
A. Absence of Prior Disciplinary Record
There is evidence in the record that this mitigating factor exists. ‘This is
Respondents first violation ofthe Delaware Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct
B, Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive
‘There is no evidence of dishonest or selfish motive therefore this
Imitigatng factor exists
©. Personal o
There is no evidence inthe record that this mitigating factor exists

1D. Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify
‘Consequences of Miscondyet

There is evidence in the record that the Respondent has made affirmative

 

‘steps to rectly deficiencies, including the timely payment ofall outstanding tax obligations. (Tr
at 17-18).

FE. Full and Free Disclosure to Disciplinary Board
‘Cooperative Attitode Towards Proceedings ___

There is evidence in the record that Respondent provided full and free

 

disclosure tothe Panel and ODC.
Fr i of Law
‘Respondent has been in private practice since 1994,
G. Character of Reputation
[No evidence was presented that would have character or reputation

‘considered as a factor inthe imposition of sanctions. However, it was noted inthe record of the
January 13, 2010, Hearing that two witnesses were slated 10 appear fo validate Respondent's

 

00d professional reputation and personal character. Since the Heating adjourned before the
witnesses’ scheduled appearance, their anticipated testimony was acknowledged by consensus of
the partes. (Tr. at 63).
1H. Physical Disability
‘There ismo evidence in the record that this mitigating factor exists
|. Mental Disability or Chemical Dependency
“There is no evidence in the record that this mitigating factor exist.
’ in Disciplinary Pr
There isno evidence in the record that this mitigating factor exists.
K Siti ies oF Sam
‘ODE submits that Respondent should be isiued a public reprimand and a
two-year period of public probation. The Respondent contends thatthe appropriate sanction is &
private admonition with the same probationery con
L, Remorse

Respondent has made no statement or expressions of remorse

 

dons recommended by ODC.

M. — Remoteness of Prior Offenses
There is no evidence inthe record that his mitigating factor exists
VL. The Paper's Recommended Sanction
The Panel has determined that a public reprimand and a public probation period of two
years is consistent with the Supreme Cours prior decisions in other cases involving similar

disci

 

linary charges. Since the aggravating factors neutralize the mitigating factors, the Panel
 

 

Finds tha a public sanction would serve the purpose of providing notice tothe legal community
and the public that violations with respect w the maintenance of proper fnancil books and
records wil be dcall with severely by the Board and by the Delaware Supreme Coun. Finally,
the Panel specifically finds thatthe imposition of the senction of public reprimand and probation
in his matter is consistent with Delaware Supreme Coun precedent in similar matters. See In re
Sil, 2009 WL 4573243 (Del Supr): In re Benson, 774 A.2d 288 (Del. Sypr. 2001): tn re
Dailey, 821 A 2d 831 (Del. Supr. 2003); tn re O'Brien, 888 A.2d 252 (Del, Supr. 2005): tn re
Froelich 828 4.2d 117 (Del Supr 2003): n re Douglas, 832 A 2d 724 (Del. Supr 2003): In re
Macpherson-Johnson, Board Case No. 40, 2000 (Del. Sypr. 2000). Each of these cases involved

Violations relating to financial record keeping and reporting

  

In terms of a specitic recommended sanction, the Panel finds thatthe Respondent should
be publicly reprimanded for his violations of Rules 1.15(4), 8 4(c) (two counts) and Rule 8.4(4)
(three counts) as well as serve a public two-year period of probation, subject to the following.
conditions:

‘A. Respondent shall have an audit by a licensed certified public accountant for his
Cortiticates of Comspliance, reporting the status of his compliance or lack thereof with the
requirements of Rule 1.15 and Rule 1.5), and shall fle each annual Certificate of Compliance
bby no later than the due date;

B. Respondent shal also provide the ODC with a timely weitten cor

 

ation that he

has filed cach Annual Certificate of Compliance with the required pre-cenification;

20
C. The Respondent shall cooperate fully and promplly with the ODC in is efforts to

 

imonitor compliance with his probation, including any aut performed a the request of the ODC
or otherwise;

D. Respondent shall also cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of any allegations
‘of any unprofesiona conduct that may come to the aiention ofthe ODC:

F. Upon request of the ODC, the Respondent shall provide authorization for the
‘lease of information and documentation to verify compliance with these conditions:

 

‘The Respondent shall pay the cost of this disciplinary proceeding pursuant to
Procedural Role 27 promptly upon being presented with a statement of these costs by the ODC.
The costs to be paid by the Respondent will include without li

 

tation the costs ofthe follow-up
sats; and,

G. Respondent shall mect with the Professional Guidance Committee for assistance
and guidance in managing his Solo practice of law and he shall complete a minimam of six hours
of continuing legal education addressing law ollice management and maintenance of books and

records, po later than the due date for fling of his 2011 Cenificate of Compliance

} hak hele
ek Redon, Ena, Cit

— Fibs k Aimee

Emilie R.Ninan, Esquire

Chobe ye Cpe HD
Adee Asiey-Axon, WD.

Dated: 3°72 1

2