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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 262-2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE,

In the Matter of
LEONARD B. EDELSTEIN No. 262, 2014

Respondent. Board Case No. 2012-0258-B

Submitted: June 6, 2014
Decided: June 18, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER

‘This 18" day of June 2014, it appears to the Court that the Board on
Professional Responsibility has filed a Report on this matter pursuant to Rule 9(d)
of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Neither the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel nor the Respondent filed objections to the Board’s Report.
‘The Court has reviewed the matter pursuant to Rule 9(e) of the Delaware Lawyers”
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and approves the Board’s Report

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report filed by the Board
‘on Professional Responsibility on May 19, 2014 (copy attached) is hereby
APPROVED and ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1, Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the State of

Delaware for a period of one year effective as of the date of this Order.
Respondent is prohibited from providing advice to any Delaware clients on
matters of Delaware law for a period of one year.
. Respondent is prohibited from acting pro hae vice on any matter in
Delaware for a period of three years.
. The contents of the Board's report shall be made public.
‘The ODC is directed to file within ten days of the date of this Order the costs
of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, Respondent is directed to pay all
costs within thirty days.
BY THE COURT:
(s/ Henry duPont Ridgely

Justice
EFiled: May 20 2014 09:58A\g
Filing ID 55471660004 M. Du

Case NumiBs? 282):
“wansa¥ Brows Et
mann | eae
arcane. Excunoe
e140 a | nbn
DARBY | BROWN-EDWARDS LLC coo,
[ATTORNEYS
May 19,2014 3
Stephen D. Taylor, Court Administrator

Supreme Court of Delaware

Elbert N. Carvel State Office Building
£820 North French Street

‘Wilmington, DE 19899

 

‘VIA HAND DELIVERY,

tne W 0% AW wt

runoa 38s 38

 

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Enclosed herewith, please find the Board Report and Recommendation
Sanctions in connection with the above-referenced matte. Please do not hesitate to let me know
if you require anything further.

‘Very truly yours,

Danby | BROWN-EDWARDS LLC

  

Mu 302-42.7820 | Fe 302-42.721 | worn DatgBnownowans cove
LM, PoBuuoxe | 1105. Mauser met | Sune 1600 | Wauneros, Dann 19801

 
 
   
 
ORIGINAL

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Inthe Maner of ) CONFIDENTIAL
)

LEONARD B. EDELSTEIN, ) Board Case No.2012-0258-B
)
Respondent. )
)

Before Theresa V. Brown-Edwards, Esquire (Chair), Susan H. Kirk-Ryan, Esquire and
Louise Roselle

Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esquire for Petitioner, Office of Disciplinary Counsel
‘Chatles Slanina, Esquire for Respondent

Dated: May 19, 2014
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.

In the Matter of: ) CONFIDENTIAL
)
LEONARD B. EDELSTEIN, ) Board Case No.2012-0258-B
Respondent.

)
)
)
)

 

On January 30, 2014, a panel ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board")
consisting of Theresa V. Brown-Eéwards, Esquire, Chai, Susin H. Kik-Ryan, Esquire and
“Louise Roselle (the “Pane”), conducted a hearing (the “Hearing”)! on the allegations of
rmisconduet brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC") ageinst Leonard B.
Edelstein ("Respondent"). Patiia Barley Schwartz, Esquire appeared on behalf of the ODC
snd Charles Slanina, Boquire appeared on behalf ofthe Respondent. Pursuant o Rule 9(@) ofthe
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, this is the Report, Findings and
‘Recommendation of the Board (fhe “Report), by the essigned Panel regarding the mater. The
ate for fling ofthe Report hasbeen extended, by onder ofthe Cour, until May 19,2014,

1. Procedural Background
(On December 5, 2013, the ODC filed a Petition (the “Petition”) for Discipline against
Respondent elleping Respondeat engaged in the unsuthrized practice of law in violation of
Rule 55(0)(1) and Rule 5.5(8)@2) ofthe Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Profesional Condus (he
“Rules,
On December 23, 2013, Respondent filed a Response (the “Respons”) to the Petition in
‘which Respondent admitted the allegations contsined in Count 1 of the Petition, the Rule

 

* Te trast of the Jmory 30, 2014 bering i ced as “Tr. t_"
'5.5(0(1) violations, but admitted in prt end denied in part the allegations contained in Count Il
of the Petition, the 5.5(b)(2) allegations.

On Jenuary 28, 2014 the Panel Chair conducted « pro-tial conference with counsel tothe
ODC and Respondent.

NNo pretrial motions were filed nor were any pre-til stipulations submited by he
parties.

‘At the Hearing, during the portion pertaining to the allegations of misconduct, the Panel
‘heard testimony from the single witness offered by the ODC, namely, the Respandent himself.
The Respondent did not present any witnesses during its case in chief.

‘During the sanctions phase of the Hearing, the Panel received into evidence, a singular
stapled packet of documents, marked “Respondent's Exhibit 1 for Mitigation Purposes."* (It. at
44-45) The Panel also herd testimony from three witness offered by Respondent, namely,
William L. McLaughlin, Je, Esquire, Michae! J, Silverman, Esquire and the Respondent who
took the stand on his own behalf. The ODC did not present any witnesses during the sanctions
pase ofthe hearing.

TL Factual Background

1, Respondent is not a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware
(Petition and Answer, 1 and Tr. at 14)

2 Respondent is an active member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Petition and Answer, 2 and Tr. at 14)

3. Respondent was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1965, began the practice of
Jaw in 1968, end has practioed ever since then, (Tr. at 14-15)

4. Atall times relevant othe Petition, Respondent was associated withthe lv fm
‘of Edelstein, Matin & Nelson in its Philadelphia office. (Petition and Answer, 3 and Tr. at 18)

5. Bdelstein, Martin & Nelson also has an office in Wilmington, Delaware.
(Petition and Answer, 4 and Tr at 15)

6. Respondent has never worked out of the Delaware office of his firm. (Tt. at 15)

 

* The OC di ot oppo the receipt it evidence of Resondent's Exhibit | fr Mitton Prpoes,
2
7. From February 2006 until March 2013, Respondent represented Delaware
residents in over 100 matters arising out of motor vehicle accidents which occurred in Delaware
and involved a policy of insurance issued for @ vehicle registered in the State of Delaware?
(Petition and Answer, { 6 and Tr. at 16-18)

8. Many of Respondent's Delaware cients came to him ase result of a referral
‘from Moms Peterzll,D.O., Wilmington, Delaware. (Petition and Answer, $8 and Tr. 17)

9. Respondent met with some of his Delaware clients to discus his representation
st Dr Peterzell’s office. Petition and Answer, {9 and Tr. at 17)

10. Some of Respondent's Delaware clients came to him as a result of television
advertisements which targeted Delaware residents. (Petition and Answer, { 10 and Te. at 18-19)

11, Respondent's frm bas been running television ads for twenty years. (Tr. at 18)

12, Respondent met with some of his Delaware clients at Eéelstin, Martin &
‘Nelson's Wilmington, Delaware offic, (Petition and Answer, 11 and Tr st 20)

TIL _ Allegations of Misconduct

In light of the pleadings, in which all of the allegations of misconduct in Count I were
‘sdmitted and the allegations related to Count II were admitted in part and denied in part, ODC
and Respondent requested that the Panel address both the allegstions of misconduct and
sanctions at the Hearing, The Panel consented to this approach. Mindful ofthe Court's guidance

‘suggesting that the Panel should make its own independent determinstion, the Panel will ist
address the allegations of misconduct before tuming to sanctions.

‘Count I of the Petition alleges:

COUNT ONE: RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE
UNATHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF RULE.
S5(b))

12, Rule 5.5(0)(1) states, “[a] lawyer who is not admitted to practice in
this jurisdiction shall not: (1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law,
establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence this jurisdiction
forthe practice of law.”

* See Petition pp 2-8, tached as Evhbi1, hereto for tbl detailing Dlavare mates handled by Respondent
3
13, By representing eighty-one Delaware residents, on a continuing basis
since February 24, 2006, in over 100 claims arising out of accidents that occurred
{in Delaware involving ‘an insurance policy issued to a vehicle registered in
Delaware, Respondent established a systematic and continuous legal presence in
Delaware, in violation of Rule 5.5 (b)(0).

14. By ising television advertisements which targeted Delaware residents,
[Respondent established a systematic and continous legal presence in Delaware,
inviolation of Rule 55 (6).

Petition t 9.
Discussion

‘Respondent admitted in his Response each ofthe allegations contained in Count I of the
Petition and testified at the Hearing that he is a lawyer licensed to practice in the state of
‘Pennsylvania and isnot admitted to practice lew in Delaware. Respondent further admitted and
‘testified that he provided legal services to eighty-one Delaware residents from February 24, 2006
‘through March 2013 in over 100 claims arising out of automobile accidents that occurred in
‘Deleware involving an insurance policy isued to vehicle registered in Delaware. (Tr. t 14-17)

Respondent further admitted and testified that for nearly the past 20 years his law firm
hhas run television ads and some of the clients that he represented in Delaware came to him
because of the television ads. (Tr. at 18-19) In speaking of the advertisements, Respondent
‘testified, “ .. they're aired on television. And I'm assuming, since television goes over state
lines, some ofthe ads would be seen in Deleware.” (Tr. at 18)

‘Respondent also testified that he advocated on behalf of his clients in an attempt to
resolve their disputes during the pre-itigation phase, Ifthe matter did not resolve via settlement,
‘Respondent testified that he would transfer the matter to a Delaware lawyer. Respondent, “ijfa
‘matter didn't settle ~ I had thought that what I had done was very preliminary in getting
‘information from the insurance company, geting information from the doctor and then sending
out a letter trying to resolve these matters preliminarily — they would [then] be refered to
‘Delaware counsel” (Tr. at 22)

‘The Panel takes note that while Respondent’s firm had a Delaware office which was
‘managed by a Delaware licensed attomey, Respondent never consulted his Delaware law partner
or any other Delaware Inver about whether his actions in representing cients in Delaware was
pemssble, (Tr. et 22)

‘The recent Supreme Court decision in In xe Nadel, 2013 WL 6252499 (Del Supe), fits
squarely with the facts and circumstances presented in the within matter. Both the ODC and
Respondent assert that the Court's holdings in that case are precedential. The Pane! agrees. In
‘Nadel on substantially identical facts, the Court found that respondent's conduct constituted the
‘authorized practice of law in violation of Rule 5.5(6)(1). Id. The Court opined tht “Nadel
Jinew that he could not actively represent Delaware clients in court, but he filed to determine
‘ny limits onthe pre-tigation assistance he thought he could provide.” (Nadel st 7)

Ccnckuinn ant Path

‘The Panel finds that Nadel is controlling and, thus, concludes that the allegations of
misconduct contained in Count 1 are supported by clear and convincing evidence and
‘Respondent's conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of lew in derogation of Rule
550K).

b. Count II of the Petition alleges:

COUNT TWO: RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE
UNATHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF RULE
55(b)@2)

15, Rule 5.5(6)@2) states, “[a]laveyer who is not admitted to practice in
‘his jurisdiction shall not: .. 2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that
‘he lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.”

16. By meeting Delaware clients in Dr. Peterzell’s Wilmington office to
<iscuss his representation, Respondent held out to the public he was admitted to
‘practice law in Delaware, in violation of Rule .5 (b)2).

 

"fe Nadel rerondeat was « non-Deleware loner admited to practice in the States of Now Jersey and
Penrylvania. For a period of nearly 3.5 yar, respondent represented more tan 75 Delaware rednts who were
involved in asomobile accidents which cccured in Delatare and involved Delaware instrtace policies The
respondent in Nadel also took eferals rom Dr. Moris Peerzall nd tet wit pproizately bao is Delaware
let at De Paras Delavare ofc. Sine to Bisse, Nadel would endervor to sete fnsrance cans
on Bebalf of his Delaware clin and if unsuccessfil at dong so, he would then refer the mater io local Dsuware
‘ounel to pursue the iigaton, Neither, Nadel, nor his firm, bad an office In Delaware and Nadel dd not use
siveraing

5
17. By siting television advertisements which targeted Delaware residents,
‘Respondent held out to the public he was admitted to practice law in Delaware, in
violation of Rule 5.5 (6)(2).

Petition at 9-10,

vecussi

‘With respect to paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent admitted in his Response end
testified at the Hearing hat he met and conducted meetings with some of his clients in the
Delaware offices of Dr. Morris Peterzll (Tt. at 17) The meetings would result in Respondent
representing the client o final setlement or if setlement was not to occur, only at that point, was
the matter refered to a Delaware lawyer for litigation. (Tr. at 40-41) Respondent further
‘udmited in his Response that “meeting clients at Dr. Peterzl’s office and subsequently the
Ihandling of their legal maters may have resuited in « misunderstanding on the part of his
clients.” Response at 10)

‘With respect to paragraph 17 ofthe Petition, and as discussed, supra, Respondents la
‘firm ran ads which sired in Delaware markets and netted some of his Delaware clients. (Tr. at
18-19) However, Respondent denies that the airing of the television ads resulted in him holding
himself out as a Delaware lawyer in violation of the ethical rules.

‘The uncontroverted evidence introduced at the Hearing, was Respondent's testimony
that, “it was generic advertising. I was never inthe advertising, Nobody in my firm was ever
{nthe advertising. It just suid if you need a lawyer, if you ere in an accident, call. Some of those
cases I got calls” (Tr. st 41) Neither the ODC nor the Respondent offered the actual ed or its
precise content into evidence.

‘Conclusion and Findings

‘With respect to paragraph 16 of the Petition, the Pane! finds that absent an affirmative
disclosure by Respondent that he was not admitted to practice law in Delaware, his meetings
‘with clients in Dr, Peterzll’s Delaware office coupled with his agreement to represent Delaware
residents end, in fact, representing those clients about legal matters azising under Delaware law
snd factual circumstances arising in Delaware would bolster a xeasonable assumption that be was
licensed to practice law in Delaware and, as such, he held himself out to be a Delaware lawyer in
violation of Rule .5(0)().

‘With respect to paragraph 17 of the Petition the Panel finds tat the “icing” of the
television ads without the inclusion of Respondent by mame, photo or likeness or sny
representative of his firm is insufficient to create a violation of Rule $.5(0)2) on the pat ofthe
Respondent. Given tat there exists no all-encompassing ban on atfomey advertising, a violation
‘of Rule 5.5(0)2) in this Panes view, would require more than mee “ring” ofan add which
‘id not include ar reference Respondent. While the overall fact patter ofthis matter illastrates
that Respondent agreed to and in fact represented his Deleware clients up to and including
settlement, Paragraph 17 of the Petition is narrowly drafted and simply refers to the “sting” of
the ads asthe sole basis forthe violation. Given te precise leguage contained in paragraph 17,
itis the Pan!’ belie that the mere “abing” of the ads ~which did not include or reference
Respondent or any lawyer in his firm--, doesnot establish a violation,

[Neverteless, since the Pans! finds that the allegations of misconduct contained in
‘paragraph 16 of Count I are supported by clee and convincing evidence, Respondents conduct
‘constituted the unmuthorized practice of aw in derogation of Rule $.5(9}2).

TV. __Sanetions Recommendation

Hiaving found that Respondent violated Rules 5.5(b)(1) and $.5(b)2), the Panel must now
address a recommendation for sanctions. The Pane is guided and bound by the precedents ofthe
Delaware Supreme Court and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.’ In
‘determining an appropriate recommendation for sanctions, the Panel has utilized the four-part
framework set forth in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawver Discipline, (1991 & Supp.
1992) (hereinafter “the ABA Standards"), as required in In se Steiner, 817 A.2d 793, 796 (Del.
2008).

‘A preliminary determination of appropriste sanctions is made by assessing the fist three
() prongs of the tet: (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the lawyer's state of mind; and (3) the
‘actual or potential injury caused by the Inwyer’s misconduct, Once the preliminary

* bare Agost, 82 A24 80 (Del 1953.
determination is made, the fourth prong addresses whether an increase or decrease in the
presumptive sanction is justified because of the presence of mitigating or aggravating factors.

‘The Panel has also been mindful that the overarching objective of the lawyer disciplinary
system in Delaware is to protect the public, protect the administration of justice, preserve
confidence in our legal profession and to deter other lawyers ftom similar misconduct. We now
‘tun tothe rationale ofthe Panel's recommendetion. The Panel finds:

‘Ethical Duties Violated

‘The Panel has found that Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
violation of Rule 5.5(6)(1) and 5.5(6)(2). Further, Rule 5.5 is generally viewed as embodying
utes to the profession. As such, Respondent violated his duties to the Profession.

‘Site of Mind

‘While Rale 55 does not have a mental state requirement, the Panel finds that Respondent
Jknew or should have known that his actions on behalf of Delaware residents who were involved
{in automobile accidents wiich oocured in Deleware in vehicles that were both insured end
registered in Delaware, was tantamount tothe practice of law, Certainly the Panel believes that
Respondent knew of should have known enough to inquire about limitations on his practie,
Respondent has been admitted tothe bar of Pennsylvania since 1965 and practicing law since
1968. (Tr. at 14) He was quite aware that he could not represent clients n Delaware lawsuits
‘pending before the Delaware courts. (Te. at 22, 24-25)

Similarly, in Nadel, the Supreme Court held that:

‘Nadel knew that he could not actively represent Delaware clients in the cour, but
hh failed to determine any limits on the pre-tigation assistance he thought he
could provide. Further, he had every opportunity to leam this information.
‘Nadel regularly worked with licensed Delaware attomeys when a client needed
to file @ claim in court. Moreover, the Delaware Lawyers" Rules and the case
aw interpreting those rules are also publicly available-something an experienced
atomey from any state would know.

Nadel at 4.
Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent's knowledge as a lawyer admitted tothe ber of
Pennsylvania and the length of time in which he has been practicing law suggest a knowing
mental state,

Actual or Potential Injury Caused by Respondent's Misconduct

While the record reflects that there was no actual harm or injury to any client or any
claim of any such injury, the Panel finds that potential harm existed by Respondent's
‘unauthorized practice of law. In Nadel, the Supreme Court held
But there was the potential for injury. Nadel could have been confronted with a
unique issue of Delaware law or a right of his client that be filed to notice,
Further, he could have created a situation where one of his Delaware clients
came to rely on his legl assistance in this ore related mater, only to be stranded

later when she realized that Nadel could not provide proper legal assistance.
‘This amounts toa potential injury to Nade!’s cients.

Nadel at 4.

‘Akin to the Supreme Court in Nadel, s0, too, this Panel finds that Respondent's
‘unuthorized practice of law presented the potential for injury.

‘Presumptive Sanctions

‘The ABA Standards set out eitera for determining presumptive sanctions based upon the
findings forthe first three eiteria. Section 7 addresses violations of duties tothe profession. The
ODC end Respondent both advance thatthe appropriate sanction for Respondent is a suspension
cof one-year from the practice of law. Section 7.2 of the ABA Standards provides that
“{sluspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a
Violation of a doty owed tothe profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the
public or the legal system.” (ABA Standards at 45)

Based on (a) the record before the Pane, (b) the Panel's independent analysis of prongs
fone through three of the four-part test for imposing lawyer discipline and (c) the Supreme
(Couut’s decision in Nadel, the panel agrees that a one-year suspension is appropriate,
« diesen

Section 9.22 of the ABA Standards provides the following factors which may be
‘considered in aggravation:

(©) PriotDisciplinary Offenses: Respondent has no prior record of diseipline in any
{jurisdiction (Tr. at 39); therefore, the Panel finds that this is not an aggravating factor;

() Dishonest or Selfish Motive: The ODC did not present evidence in support of an
‘argument, nor did it argue, that Respondent acted out of dishonesty or selfish motive, The Panel
does not find sufficient evidence of dishonesty or selfish motive to find this an aggravating
‘actor;

© A Patten of Misconduct; The evidence before the Panel reflects that Respondent
represented over 80 Delaware clients in an excess of 100 matters over a period spanning 7 years
and 1 month. (Petition and Answer, {6 and Tr. et 16-18) The Panel finds that Respondent
persisted in his manner of obtaining clienis in Delaware and undertking the attendant
representations for a period in excess of 7 years. Adkltionally, the Panel finds that with respect
to certain of his 80 plus Delaware clients, Respondent represented them in multiple matters. As
such, the Panel considers this tobe an aggravating factor,

(® Malle Offenses: The evidence before the Penel reflects that Respondent
‘represented over 80 Delaware clients in an excess of 100 matters over a period spanning 7 years
and I month. (Petition and Answer, { 6 and Tr. at 16-18) The Panel finds each individual matter
‘to represent a separate offense and separate violations by Respondent of the Rules. As such, the
‘Panel considers this to be an aggravating factor;

 

  

© ce, False Statements, or Other Deceptive Pr
‘During the Disciplinary Process: There is no evidence in the record that this factor exists;

      

 

10
(© Refuse to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct: Respondent admitted in
his Response all of the allegations in Coun of the Petition and atthe Hearing. While admitting
in part and denying in part the allegetions in Count II of the Petition, Respondent did
acknowledge his actions in his Answer and while testifying atthe Hearing, Panel finds that this
isnot an aggravating factor;

@) Vulnerability of Victim: There is no evidence in the record that this factor exists,

@® Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law: Respondent was admitted to
practice law in 1965 end has been continuously pretcing law since 1968, a period of 46 years
‘The Panel finds thet Respondent has substantial experience in the Practice of law and that this is
an aggravating factor,

@ Indifference to Making Restitution: There is no evidence in the record that this
factor exist; and

(%) legal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled Substances: There
{smo evidence in the record that this factor exists.

Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards provides the following factors which may be
considered in mitigation:

(@) Absence of Prior Disciplinary Record: Respondent has no prior record of
<isciplin in any jurisdiction. (Tr. at 39) The Panel finds this to bea mitigating factor;

(©) Absense of «Dishonest or Selfish Motive: As discussed, sypra, no evidence was
introduced into evidence regarding Respondent's motive, thus, the Panel finds insufficient
evidence exists oextablish has a mitgnting factor,

(© Penna or Emotional Problems: There is no evidence inthe record tha this
factor exists

© Good to Make Restitution or to Rea Consequences of
‘Misconduct Therein evidence in the record that this mitigating factor has any application as
itrelates to restition, since none is necesery. Upon his reltation that his representation of|

      

u
clients in Delaware was actionable by the ODC, as the unauthorized practice of law in violation
of Rule 5.5(0)(1) and Rule 5.5(6)(2), Respondent immediately ceased representing clients in
Delaware and transitioned them to @ Delaware lawyer. (Tr. at 45) Respondent also placed a
‘firewall in his records at his lew firm between him and each of his former Delaware clients. (Tr.
at 45) The Panel views Respondent's immediate efforts to rectify consequences of his
misconduct as a mitigating factor,

(©) Bulland Free Disclome to Disciplinary Board or Cooperative Atte toward
‘Proceedings: The record reflects that Respondent was immediately cooperative and responsive to
‘the ODC once it became involved in this matter and proceeded in a cooperative fashion
‘throughout the Hearing. The Panel finds thet this is a mitigating factor,

© —Inexperience in the Practice of Law: As discussed, supra, the Panel finds thet
‘Respondent has substantial experience inthe Practice of law such that it is an aggravating factor
and nota mitigating factor;

(© Character or Reputation: Pennsylvania ettomey, William L. McLaughlin J. end
Delaware ettomey, Michael I. Silverman, both testified on Respondent's behalf to offer
‘mitigating testimony. They each testified to Respondent's good character and his good
reputation as a lawyer. (I, at 50-53 and 54-56) In addition, the Panel takes note of Respondent's
‘Exhibit 1 for Mitigating Purposes wihich contains « sizeable compilation of “thank you" notes
and various expressions of gratitude offered by some of Respondents former clients, The Panel
accepts that Respondent isa long standing, successful atomey practicing inthe area of eccident
litigation with a good reputation with both the bench and bar in the stato of Pennsylvania. The
‘ponel views this asa mitigating factor,

(4) Physical Disability: There is no evidence inthe record that this factor exists;

   

o Disabil

(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is aflected by a chemical
‘dependency or mental is

@) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct;

 

2
@ the respondent's recovery ftom the chemical dependency or mental
Gisability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of

suocessfl rehabilitation; nd
(B) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is
‘unlikely.
‘There is no evidence in the record that this factor exists;

© Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings: There is no evidence inthe record that this
factor exists;

(c) Imposition of other Penalties or Sanctions: This factor is inapplicable to this
proceeding,

(Remorse: Respondent expressed sincere remorse and regret for his actions end
spologized tothe Panel, the ODC, the Delaware Supreme Coust end the Delaware Ber for his
sctions. (Tr at 42) The Pane finds this to bea mitigating factor, and

(qm) Remoteness of Prior Offenses. This is inapplicable to this proceeding as
Respondent had no record of prior discipline.
YV. Panel Conclusions and Recommendations

Upon weighing the applicable aggravating and mitigating cicumstances, the Panel
belioves thatthe presumptive sanction of suspension remains appropriate, The circumstances of|
{his case ae substantially similer to those preseted in Nadel. The Nadel cout adopted a pane!’s
recommendation ofa one-year suspension with several conditions: () a prohibition on advising
Delaware clients on matters of Delaware law fora period of one year; (6) a prohibition ftom
scting pro hac vice on any matter in Delaware for a period of three years; (6) thatthe content of
{ts eport be made publi; and (6) that Nadel pay the costs ofthese proceedings. The Cour held:

‘We hold tha the Pane! properly concluded, a one year-suspension, along with the
‘ditional limitations that it recommended, would adequately protect the public
‘nd the administration of justice, preserve confidence in the legal profession, and
deter other lawyers from engaging in similar conduct

Nadel at 5.

B
‘This Panel believes that Respondent's sanctions should parallel those held up by the
Supreme Court in Nadel, Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the Court impose the
following sanctions and conditions, to wit hat

1) Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Delaware for @
period of one year,

2) Respondent be prohibited from providing advice to any Delaware clients on matters
‘of Delaware law for a period of one year;

3) Respondent be prohibited from acting pro hao vice on any matter in Delaware for 8
pesiod of three years;

4) The contents of this report be made public; and
5), Respondent pay the costs ofthese proceedings

‘Respectfully submitted,

Date: May 19, 2014

Date: May 19, 2014

Date: May 19, 2014

 

“
‘This Panel believes that Respondent's sanctions should parallel those held up by the
Supreme Court in Nadel. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the Court impose the
{llowing sanctions and conditions, to wit, that:

1) Respondent be suspended from the practice of lew in the Stte of Delaware for a
period of one year,

‘Respondent be prohibited from providing advice to any Detaware clients on maters
‘of Delaware law fora period of one year,

3) Respondent be prohibited from acting pro hao vice on any matter in Delaware for a
period of thre years;

4) The contents of this report be made public; and
45) Respondent py the costs of these proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

ate: May 19, 2014
‘Theresa V Brown Edwards, Boquire (DE Bar No. 4225)
Chair

HL Ki Esquire (DE Bar No.1070)

Date: May 19,2014

 

Louise Roselle

1s

     
(CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Theresa V. Brown-Edwards, cent that Iam no les than 18 years of age and tat on

this 19th day of Moy, 2014, 1 caused a true and corest copy of the foregoing Report and

Recommendation of Sanctions to be served, as indicated, upon the following parties:

Under penalty of perjury, I declare thatthe foregoing is true and correct.

‘VIA HAND DELIVERY AND. ‘MIAFIRST CLASS AND ELECTRONIC
ELECTRONIC MAIL MALL

Patricia Bartey Schwartz, Esquire Caries Slanins, Esquire

Office of Disciplinary Counsel Finger & Slanina, LUC

Carvel Stats Ofice Building 724 Yorkdyn Road

S20N. French Street Suite 210

U1 Floor Hockessin, DE 19707-1449

‘Wilmington, DE 19801

Date: May 19, 2014

     

(DE Bar No. 4225)