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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 60014876

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-12T00:00:00Z

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. 5, 2017 § TABATHA L. CASTRO § Submitted: April 5, 2017 Decided: April 12, 2017 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and SEITZ, Justices. O R D E R This 12th day of April 2017, it appears to the Court that: (1) This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. On January 3, 2017, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed a report with this Court recommending, among other things, that the respondent, Tabatha L. Castro, be publicly reprimanded and placed on a period of probation for two years. A copy of the Board’s report and recommendation is attached to this order. (2) The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) did not file any objections to the Board’s report. Castro filed objections, contending that the Board’s recommendation of a public reprimand was based on its misapplication of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“the ABA Standards”) and its failure to give due weight to the mitigating circumstances in her case. In response, the ODC asserts that the Board did not err in holding that a public reprimand is the 2 presumptive sanction under the circumstances and that, even considering the mitigating factors, a reduction of the sanction was not warranted and that a public reprimand was consistent with this Court’s prior cases. (3) The Court has considered the matter carefully. Castro admitted that she failed to properly maintain her firm’s books and records for three consecutive years, that she filed inaccurate Certificates of Compliance with this Court for three consecutive years, and that she failed to give her flat fee clients proper notice that the fee was refundable if not earned by her. We agree with the Board’s conclusion that a public reprimand was the presumptive sanction under the ABA Standards. We also agree that, even considering the mitigating circumstances, a reduction of the sanction was not warranted, and a public reprimand is more consistent with our precedent. (4) In a case involving similar recordkeeping violations, in which we found the mitigating factors to be “substantial,”1 we nonetheless were unpersuaded that any lesser sanction than a reprimand was justified.2 We held in that case: [A] public sanction affords the Court the opportunity to underscore how serious the Court considers a lawyer’s obligation to maintain orderly books and records. The failure to fulfill this obligation presents serious risks of harm to a lawyer’s clients. A public sanction also serves as an important preventive measure in cases such as this in which the violations could be readily repeated without prompt 1 In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724, 736 (Del. 2003). 2 Id. 3 detection. A public sanction puts clients on notice of past problems and allows them to take any steps deemed necessary to protect their own interests.3 (4) Thus, we accept the Board’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand with a two-year period of probation. We incorporate the Board’s findings and recommendation by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Board’s report is hereby ACCEPTED. Castro is hereby reprimanded and placed on probation for two years subject to the following conditions: a) Before filing both her 2018 and 2019 Certificate of Compliance, Castro shall be audited by a licensed CPA who is knowledgeable of the accounting procedures used for audits under Rule 1.15(d) and has attended the training offered by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The auditor must report on the status of Castro’s compliance or non-compliance. b) Castro shall provide the ODC with a copy of the required pre- certification. c) Castro shall pay the costs associated with the investigation of this matter by the ODC, including the costs of the Lawyers’ Fund audit. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 3 Id. at 736-37. EFiled: Jan 03 2017 02:29PM EST Filing ID 60014876 Case Number 5,2017 “By failing to safeguard client funds, which resulted in negative client balances in Fiduciary ‘Account #0208725606 as noted in the 2013 Gunnip Report, and 2015 LFCP? Report, Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a).” (emphasis in original). Based on the amendment 10 Paragraph 14 of the Petition, the Respondent amended the Answer's Paragraph 14 10 “Admitted.” (Tr. at p. 6.) Additionally, the Respondent amended the Answer's Paragraph 12, regarding a violation of Rule 1.5(f), to “Admitted,” based on clients who had paid a flat fee but were not given a fee agreement. (Tr. at pp. 7-9.) The amendments resulted in a five-count Petition, with the Respondent admitting all five counts. ‘At the Hearing, the Panel received into evidence a joint exhibit book. The Panel also ‘heard testimony from the Respondent. The ODC and the Respondent also stipulated to a proffer of testimony on the Respondent's behalf from Perry Goldlust, Esquire, a member of the Delaware Bar, indicating that Attorey Goldlust has known the Respondent for a number of ‘years and that he knows the Respondent to have good character and reputation with the Bar. (Tr. at pp. 54-55.) UH, Factual Findings Since the Respondent's Answer had admitted the violations alleged in the Petition, the ODC, the Respondent, and the Panel treated the hearing as relating primarily to sanctions. (Tr. at pp. 9-10). Nevertheless, the Panel received testimony from the Respondent and the exhibits relating to factual circumstances surrounding the violations. The exhibits consisted of: 1) an Independent ‘Accountant's Report from Master Sidlow Associates dated November 4, 2013; 2) a 2013 Immigration Fee Agreement; 3) the Respondent's 2013 Delaware Supreme Court Cerificate of Compliance; 4) an Independent Accountant's Report from Gunnip and Company dated June 30, 2014; 5) the Respondent's 2014 Delaware Supreme Court Certificate of Compliance; 6) an 2 The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. Independent Accountant's Report fom Master Sidlow Associates dated December 18, 2015; 7) 2015 Wil Fee Agreement; and 8) ) the Respondent's 2015 Delaware Supreme Court Cerificate of Compliance. Based on the factual allegations ofthe Petition admited by the Respondent and the credible tuncontroverted testimony received at the hearing from the Respondent and the submitted exhibits, the Board makes the fctal findings which follow. 1. The Respondent is a member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of Delaware, She was adimited to the Bar in 2004. At all times relevant to the Petition, the Respondent was engaged in the private practice of law in Wilmington, Delaware (Petition and Answer § 1; Tr. at p. 16) In October 2006, the Respondent started The Castro Firm. (Tr. at p. 16.) From that time through the day of the firm’s last audit, the Respondent was in charge of the firm's books and records. (Tr. at pp. 16-17.) 2. A random compliance audit of the Respondent's financial books and records was conducted at the Respondent's law offices forthe six months ending September 30, 2013 by the auditor for the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (“LFCP"). (Petition and Answer 93; Tr. at p. 17.) 3. The LFCP provided the ODC with a report (the “2013 Master Sidlow Audit Report”) ‘conceming the compliance audit for the six months ending September 30, 2013, and a copy of the 2013 Master Sidlow Audit Report was admitted without objection at the hearing as ODC Exhibit 1. (Petition and Response 3; Tr. at p. 17.) 4, The 2013 Master Sidlow Audit Report included the following findings relating 0 the Respondent's books and records: ‘Fiduciary Account #0208725606 (@) There were two checks outstanding for longer than six months in the time period reviewed; (b) The June and September bank reconciliations did not agree to the related general ledger balances; (© The subsidiary ledger did not reflect any attomey funds. Consequently, the completeness of fiduciary transactions and balances could not be ascertained; (@) The reconciled end of month cash balances did not agree to total client funds in any of the months reviewed; (© There were negative balances on the monthly listing of client funds during the time period reviewed; (0 There were three balances that were over six months old for completed cases; (g) The fiduciary account contained eared attorney's fees; (b) One out ofthe five retainer agreements provided did not state “the fee is refundable if not eared”; and Fiduciary Account 40208725739 () The attomey did not prepare a monthly listing of client balances. (Petition and Answer 4; Tr at p. 18.) 5. The Respondent filed her 2013 Delaware Supreme Court Certificate of Compliance, which was admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 2. (Petition and Answer 5; Tr. at p. 20.) For Items 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.12, the Respondent answered “Yes” but should have answered “No.” (Petition 5; Tr tp. 21.) 6. The Respondent provided the ODC with an Independent Accountant's Report from Gunnip and Company dated June 30, 2014 (the “2014 Gunnip Audit Report” and a copy of which was admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 4. (Petition and Answer 6; Tr at pp. 21-22) 7. The 2014 Gunnip Audit Report included the following findings relating to the Respondent's ‘books and records: [Eiduciary Account #0208725606 (@) There were seven checks outstanding for longer than six months in the time period procedures were performed; (©) The March and May bank reconciliations did not agree to the corresponding general ledger balances; (©) There were negative balances on the monthly listing of client funds during the time period reviewed; (@) There were eared attomey fees in the client balances of June 30, 2014; and (€) One out ofthe five retainer agreements provided did not state “the fee is refundable i not comet" (Petition and Answer § 7; Tr at pp. 22-23.) 8. The Respondent fled her 2014 Delaware Supreme Court Certificate of Compliance, which ‘was admitted without objection a the hearing as ODC Exhibit 5. (Petition and Answer 8; Tr. at .23,) For Items 2.5, 2.9, and 2.12, the Respondent answered “Yes” but should have answered “No.” (Pe tion $8; Tr. at p. 24.) 9. The LFCP provided the ODC with a report (the “2015 Master Sidlow Audit Report”) concerning the compliance audit forthe six months ending October 30, 2015, and a copy of the 2015 Master Sidlow Audit Report was admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 6. (Petition and Answer 4 9; Tr. at . 25.) 10. The 2015 Master Sidlow Audit Report included the following findings relating to the Respondent's books and records: Fiduciary Accoun 10208725606 (@) The firm exceeded the $2,000 limit of atomey funds held inthe fiduciary account (b) There were negative balances in the client funds list; (6) The fiduciary account contained $2,165 of earned fes; (@) Two of the five retainer agreements selected did not contain clauses stating thatthe fe refundable if not earned or out the basis under which the fee shall be considered cared and Fiduei 7257 (6) There was one check outstanding for longer than six months. (Petition and Answer 410; Tr. at pp. 25-26.) 11. The Respondent filed her 2015 Delaware Supreme Court Cerificate of Compliance, which was admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 8. (Petition and Answer 8; Tr. at p. 23.) For Items 2.5, 2.9, and 2.12, the Respondent answered “Yes” but should have answered “No.” (Petition 11; Tr at p.28,) 12, Neither the 2013 Immigration Fee Agreement, admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 5, nor the 2015 Will Fee Agreement, admitted without objection a the hearing as DC Exhibit 7, contained clauses indicating the fe is refundable if not eamed. (Petition and Amended Answer § 12; Tr. at pp. 20,27.) IL, Standard of Proof Allegations of professional misconduct must be established by the ODC by clear and ‘convincing evidence? IV. Findings on Violations ofthe Rules Based on the Respondent's admissions and the evidence provided at the Hearing, the Panel finds that the ODC has met its burden. Specifically, the Pet alleges, and the Answer, ‘as amended, admits, five violations of five separate rules of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct as follows: COUNT ONE: RESPONDENT FAILED TO INCLUDE “FEE IS REFUNDABLE IF NOT EARNED" IN ALL ADVANCE FEES AGREEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.5(0) Rule 1.5(9 states an atiomey may “require the client to pay some or all of the fee in acivance of” the representation, provided the attorney “shall provide the clint with a writen statement thatthe fee is refundable if it is nt earned". By filing to provide clients who had pid a fat fe witha writen fee agreement containing sucha written statement, the Respondent violated Rule .5(9. (Petition and Amended Answer 12.) COUNT TWO: RESPONDENT FAILED TO IDENTIFY AND SAFEGUARD CLIENT FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(a) Rule 1.15(a) requires that a lawyer holding the property of clients or third persons shall identify and appropriately safeguard such property, and shall maintain complete records of such property fora period of ive years afer the completion ofthe events that they record. By filing to safeguard t funds, resulted in negative client balances, the Respondent violated Rule 1.15(@).( mand Amended Answer $9 13-14.) COUNT THREE: RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(4) > Delaware Lawyers’ Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 15(0), Rule 1.15(4) ses forth detiled and specific requirements for the maintenance of attomeys’ books and records and handling of practce-elated funds. The Respondent filed to properly maintain her books and records in violation of Rule 1.15(4) in that: (1) the Respondent's bank reconciliations didnot agree to the related general ledger balances; (2) the Respondent's reconciled end of month cash balances didnot agree with toll client funds; @) there were negative balances on the monthly listing of client fads; (4) there were balances over six months old (5) the Respondent filed to prepare a monthly listing of cient balances; and (6) the Respondent failed to withdraw eared attorney fees from a trust account. (Petit mn and Answer 415-16) COUNT FOUR (FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL COUNT FOUR BEING STRUCK): RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INVOLVING MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8.4(c) Rule 8.4(¢) provides that s professional misconduct for a lawyer o “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misreprsentation.” By filing with the Delaware Supreme Cour in 2013, 2014, and 2015 Certfiates of Compliance which included misepresenatons relating to the Respondent's maintenance of her law practice books and records, the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(). (Petition and Answer ff 19-20, COUNT FIVE (FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL COUNT FOUR BEING STRUCK): RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8.4(¢) Rule 8.4(d) provides tha itis professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The Delaware Supreme Court relies upon the representations made by attomeys in the Certificates of Compliance filed each year in the ‘administration of justice governing the practice of law in Delaware. By filing with the Delaware Supreme Cour in 2013, 2014, and 2015 Certificates of Compliance which included misrepresentations relating to the Respondent's maintenance of her law practice books and records, the Respondent violated Rule 8 4(2). (Petition and Answer §§ 21-22) V. Recommended Sanction [At the Hearing, the ODC contended thatthe presumptive santion in this matter is a public reprimand with a swo-year probation. (Tr. at p. $5.) The Respondent, through her counsel contended tat, no matter whether the string point forthe analysis on sanctions was & public reprimand ora private admonition, the appropiate end result i a private admonition with conditions including two years of compliance pre-cetiicaton by a licensed cerified publi sccountant who has attended the LFCP training and sending copies of the accountant's certification tothe ODC. (Tr. a pp. 68, 74) For the reasons which follow, the Panel recommends thatthe Respondent be subject toa public reprimand and a two-year probation during which the Respondent must provide a pe-erifiation by a licensed cetfed public accountant who has attended the LFCP training with her Certificates of Compliance filed in 2017 and 2018, sending «copy of each pre-erifiation othe ODC. VI. Rationale fr Recommended Sanction Inmaking its ecommendton, the Pane as lied the four-part framework eft in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 as amended February 1992) (“ABA Standards"). To promote consistency and predibiity in the imposition of dissiplinary sanctions, the Delaware Supreme Cour looks tothe ABA Standards. n re Doughty, 832 A.24 1724, 735-736 (Del. 2003) (citations omitted), The ABA Standards’ framework considers (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the lawyers state of mind; (3) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) aggravating and mitigating factors. J 1. The Ethical Duties Violated. As previously recited, the ODC alleged, the Respondent admitted, and the Panel determined that the Respondent committed misconduct in violation of Professional Rules of ‘Conduct 1.5(6) (filing to provide the client with a written statement thatthe fee is refundable if itis not earned); 1.15(a) (failing to safeguard client funds); 1.15(d) (filing to properly maintain financial books and records); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or ‘misrepresentation); and, 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice governing the practice of law in Delaware). Under the ABA Standards, this misconduct constituted jons of duties owed by the Respondent to clients (Rules 1.5 and 1.15(a) and (@), and violations of duties owed by Respondent tothe legal system (Rules 8.4 (c) and (@)). See ABA Standards 4.0 and 6.0 2. State of Mind. ‘The ODC contends, the Respondent agrees, and the Panel finds that the Respondent's ‘mental state was negligence. (Tr. at pp. 56, 70.) The Panel accepts the Respondent's testimony that following the 2013 Master Sidlow Audit Report the Respondent ceased her relationship with her prior accounting firm and bookkeeper and retained a bookkeeper from Gunnip and Company ‘and an accountant from the same company. (Tr. at pp. 38-39.) Unfortunately, rather than “clean” audit, this resulted in the findings in the 2014 Gunnip Audit Report, which the Respondent then provided to the ODC. (Tr. at pp. 44-45.) The Respondent's first bookkeeper from Gunnip and Company became |. (Tr. at pp. 38-39.) The 2015 Master Sidlow Audit Report found that there were additional issues in the six months ending October 30, 2015. (Pet and Answer ¥ 10; Tr. at pp. 25-26.) The Respondent began using her current bookkeeper in January 2016. (Tr. at p. 39.) The Respondent purchased and trained with invoicing software that was recommended by her accountant. (Tr. at p. 39.) Additionally, the Respondent began meeting with the bookkeeper every other Friday to review the books. (Tr. at P40) Regarding the fee agreements, the Respondent hired staff and paid overtime to staff to remove the noncompliant fee agreement forms from the office server, to mitigate the possibility ‘of using a noncompliant frm going forward. (Tr. at. 39.) Regarding the misrepresentation on the Certificates of Compliance, the Respondent testified to her misunderstanding that the questions referred tothe month in which she completed the Certificates of Compliance, rater than applying tothe entre year. (Tr. at p. 45-46) In light of the above, the Panel finds thatthe Respondent was negligent, which is defined in the ABA Standards as “the failure ofa lawyer to heed a substantial risk that circumstances ‘exist or that a result will follow, which failure isa deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise inthe situation.” Compare In the Mater of Stull, 685 A.24 351, 2009 WL 4573243 (Del. 2009) (approving Board determination of acting with “knowledge” ‘when attomey took “headin the sand” approach, despite being consciously aware of obligations to manage law office and accurately complete Certificates of Compliance). 3. Actual or Potential Injury ‘There was no testimony or evidence presented thatthe misconduct actully harmed any ofthe Respondent's clients. However, actual injury isnot required. See, eg, In re Benson, 77 ‘A.24 258, 262 (Del. 2001). The potential for injury to a client existed, as funds might not have been available unde different cieumstances ra client might not have realized that the unearned portion of the fee was refundable, With respect to the legal system, potential injury existed, as the Court may have relied on the Certificates of Compliance. 4. Presumptive Sanction In the Panels view, analysis of the ethical duties violated by the Respondent, the Respondents state of mind and the potential fr injury caused by Respondent's misconduct rise 1 presumptive sanction of public eprimand. The ethical duties violated direct the Panel to the following factors contained inthe ABA Standards: 4.1 (or violations of Rule 1.15() and (@), 446 for violation of Rule 1.5(0), and 6.1 (for violations of Rule 8.46) and (8)). Whee, a in this matter, the conduct involves negligent acts with injury or potent injury, these provisions point ‘generally to @ public reprimand as an appropriate sanction. See ABA Standards 4.13, 4.63, 6.13 ‘and 7.3. The presumptive sanction must then factor in the presence or absence of any mitigating ‘or aggravating factors. 5. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. ‘ABA Standard 9.22 sets fort the following non-exhaustive ls of aggravating factors (pri ary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive, () a pattern of misconduct; (8) multiple offenses; (6) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally filing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (® submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (h) vulnerability of vietim; (0 substantial experience in the practice of law i) indifference to making restitution; wil legal conduc, including that involving the use of controlled substances. (ABA Standard § 9.22) ‘The only aggravating factor referenced in argument was substantial experience in the practice of law, given the Respondent's ten years as a member of the Bar in charge of her fim’ books and records. (Tr. at p. 60.) The ODC viewed the factor ina “lukewarm” manner. The Panel notes that some of the violations date back to when the Respondent had a few years less experience and, even assuming arguendo that the seven to ten years constitutes substantial experience inthe practice, this aggravating factor alone does not justify imposition of a sanction more severe than a public reprimand, particularly in light of the numerous mitigating factors discussed below. ABA Standard 9.32 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in mitigation: (2) absence ofa prior disciplinary records () absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive; (©) personal or emotional problems; (@) timely good faith effort to make res (or to rectify consequences of misconduct, (© fll and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (® inexperience in the practice of law; (g) character or reput (b) physical disability; (@) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when: (A) there is medical evidence that the Respondent is affected by a chemical dependency ‘or mental dis (2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; @) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is ly; (&) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; () remorse; (m) remoteness of prior offenses. (ABA Standard § 9.32) ‘At the Hearing, the Respondents counsel contended to the Panel that factors (2), (b),(€), (@), (W, and (J) should be considered. (Tr. at pp. 69-71.) The ODC did not contest this contention. The Panel concurs. The evidence shows an absence of a prior disciplinary record, ‘an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full an free disclosure tothe ODC and a cooperative attitude toward proceedings, good character and reputation, the imposition of other penalties or sanctions in the form of time and expense in attempts to correct the issues, and remorse. ‘The Panel recognizes the Respondent's repeated efforts to address the issues and her view of the audits asa wake-up call a5 well as for her willingness to share her experience at continuing egal education seminars inorder o educate other members ofthe Bar, (Tr. pp. 41- 42.) Nevertheless, the Pane finds that these mitigating factors cannot negate the sanction of public reprimand. The Panel believes that a private sanction would not serve the purpose of providing notice to the legal community and the public that repetitive violations with respect to ‘maintenance of proper financial books and records are taken very seriously by the Board andthe Delaware Supreme Court. See In re Benson, 774 A2d 258, 262-263 (Del. 2001) (finding that a private sanction may be appropriate for an isolated record-keeping violation, but negligent failure forthe consecutive years to determine whether Certificates of Compliance are accurate reflects pattem of misconduct justifying public reprimand). 6. Precedent Lastly, the Panel believes that recommending a public reprimand in this matter is ‘consistent with Delaware Supreme Court precedent. “(T]he objectives of any lawyer sanction should be to protect the public, to advance the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.” Jn re Doughty, 832 ‘A24 724, 735-736 (Del 2003) (iations omitted), ‘With regard to an appropriate sanction,‘ counsel for the Respondent directed the Pane!’ attent to two prior rulings ofthe Delaware Supreme Court in 2001: In re Benson, 77 A.2d 258 (Del, 2001), declining the Board's recommendation of a private admonition and, instead, ‘imposing and public reprimand and a two-year probation for unintentional violations involving ‘noncompliant books and records, unpaid taxes, and mistepresentations on Certificates of Compliance; and In re MacPherson-Johnson, 782. A.2d 265, 2001 WL 760866 (Del. 2001) approving the Board's recommendation of a public reprimand with two-year probation for ‘establishing a violation of Rule 1.5(0) In re Pankowski, 947 A.2d 2007 WL 4245472 (Del. 2007), Inre Vanderslice, $5 A.34 322 (Del. 2012), and In re Barakat, 99 A.3d 639 (2013). The ODC also submitted for the purpose of establishing a violation of Rule 1.15(a) In re Solomon, 745 ‘A.24 874 (Del. 1999), Additionally, the ODC provided Jn re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724 (2003), In re Otlowski, 976 A.2d 172, 2009 WL 1796083 (Del. 2008), In re Froelich, 838 A.2d 1117 (Del, 12003), and fn re Stull, 985 A.2d 391, 2009 WL 4573243 (Del. 2009). violations involving noncompliant books and records, unpaid taxes, and misrepresentations on Centificates of Compliance. (Tr. at pp. 64-66.) ‘The Panel inquired of the Respondent’s counsel and the ODC of any post-2001 cases ‘with similar violations to the case sub judice in which the Delaware Supreme Court imposed a private admonition, In response, the ODC noted that Jn re Woods, —- A3d —-, 2016 WL 3886148 (Del. 2016), and Jn re Martin, 35 A.3d 419, 2011 WL 2473325 (Del. 2011), both involved attomeys who agreed to a pri te admonition and probation with conditions. The private admonitions became public when the attorney in each matter then violated a condition of the probation, specifically the need to pro a pre-cetfcation fora Cerificate of Compliance. Wiile the these two eases involve violations of Rules 1.15 and 84 unlike the present matter, neither In re Woods nor Inre Martin reflects the additional violation of Rule 1.5 Regarding very recent precedent, the Panel also notes the Delaware Supreme Couns public reprimand and two-year probation with conditions in In re Gray, 2016 WL 7188110. In that mate, the Board noted the primary bass for decining to recommend a private admonition as the violati Juding failure to file and pay taxes, in addition to the books and records violations, In the matter at hand, while there is no violation for filing to file or pay taxes, there is an additional violation of Rule 1.5(0) due to the improper fee agreements. Vit Concasion Based on the foregoing considerations, the Pane recommends as action ofthe Board that. the snetion se fon in Section Vof his Report be imposed upon the Respondent, inching ‘he imposition of oss of these disciplinary proceeding, including the LECP ait in 2015, Pursuant fo Delaware Lawyers’ Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 27. Respectflly submitted,