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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 463-2017-0

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-14T00:00:00Z

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 § No. 463, 2017
DELAWARE: §
§
TIMOTHY A. DILLON §

Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: December 12, 2017
Corrected: December 14, 2017
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER

This 14" day of December 2017, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This isa lawyer disciplinary proceeding. On November 7, 2017,
the Board on Professional Responsibility filed a report with this Court
recommending that the respondent, Timothy A. Dillon, Equire, be publicly
reprimanded and placed on a period of probation for two years, with the
imposition of specific conditions. A copy of the Board’s report is attached to
this order. Neither the Office of Disciplinary Counsel nor Dillon has filed any
objections to the Board’s report.

(2) The Court has considered the matter carefully. We find the
Board’s recommendation of a public reprimand with a two-year period of

probation with conditions to be appropriate. Thus, we accept the Board's
findings and recommendation for discipline and incorporate the Board’s
findings and recommendation by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Board's November 7,
2017 report is hereby ACCEPTED. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall
disseminate this Order in accordance with Rule 14 of the Delaware Lawyers’

Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

BY THE COURT:

 

 
    
 

EFiled: Nov 07 2017 03:54P 144

Filing 10 61933612 Cea
er

Case Number 463,2017

ncespten

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY $
(OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARB

In the Mater of a

Member ofthe Bar ofthe

‘Supreme Cour of Delaware:

TIMOTHY A. DILLON,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATONS OF THE HEARING PANEL
Pending before a panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board i

 

Petition for Discipline filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (the “ODC") in Board Case
‘Nos, 112927-B, 113266-B (the “Petition”) against Timothy A. Dillon, Esquire (“Respondent”), a
‘member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Stale of Delaware. The Petition alleged
violations of Rules 11, 1.3, 1.15 (@), 34 (2), $3, 84 (@) and 8.4 (4). Respondent, through his
‘counsel, Charles Slanina, Esquire, filed an Answer tothe Petition (the “Answer”), on March 21,
2017 admitting al of th allegations contained inthe Petition.

On July 13, 2017, a panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility, Deirdre A.
McCartney, Esquire, Chair, Daniel F. Woleot, Jr, Esquire and Mr. John D. Shevock ("he
Pane) held a joint lisility and saneton hearing on a petition for discipline fled by the (ODC)
in the sbove-captioned matter. Kathleen Volval, Esquire, presented the petition for ODC.
Charles Stanina, Esquire represented Timothy A. Dillon, (“Respondent”), The Panel found that
Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.15 (8) 34 (€), $3, 8.4 (c) and 8.4 (@) ofthe Delaware
Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”)
Procedure Background
‘On July 7, 2017, prio tothe hearing, Counsel for ODC, Respondent and the panel chair
‘held a pre-hearing teleconference to discuss the upcoming hearing. At the request ofthe parties 8
pint hearing was scheduled for both the liability and sanctions portions. At the liability potion
ofthe Hearing, the Pane received into evidence a joint exhibit book. The Panel also heard
‘testimony fom the Respondent. Following the liability portion ofthe hearing, the panel
concluded that Respondent had violated all ofthe counts in the petition for discipline. During
the sanctions portion ofthe hearing, the Panel also heard testimony from the Respondent, Mark
Reardon, Esquire, Robert McCann, Esquire, Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Esquire via affidavit)
‘and Renee Villano. Aller the sanctions portion ofthe hearing, atthe request ofthe hearing
panel, the record was supplemented by post hearing memorandum on sanctions. The parties Ged

 

‘memorandum regarding odmi

  

facts, rules, violations and recommended sanctions.
“The record was closed on September 6, 2017.
For the reasons stated below, the Panel finds that Respondent violated Rules 1.1,

1.3, 1.15 (@), 34 (©, 53, 84 (6) and 8.4 (4) by filing o provide competent represenation to
clients, by filing to diligently represent clients, by knowingly disobeying an obligation under
the rules of a tibuna, by filing to supervise his non-lawyer asistans, by engaging in conduct
‘Prejudicial to the administration of justice, by failing to maintain his aw firm's books and
records and engaging in conduct involving misrepresenation.
Facts

‘The record in this proceeding consists of the testimony of witnesses at the hearing,
exhibits submited in connection with the hearing and other submissions of the partes, The

transcript of the lability and sanctions portion of the hearing is cited hereinafter, as “Tr,

 
“ "At the laity nd sxnoons portion ofthe hetring, the pais sited jon,
exhibits. The ont exhibits mite the ity prin ofthe hearing acted heir, as
“ent ,

Since the Responden’s Answer ha admited the violtions allege inthe Petition, the
(00C, the Respond, nd the Panel tented he eating a eltng primal to sanctions (Tat
1p. 3-4). Neveless, the Panel recived testimony fom the Respondent and te exhibits
reling to feat crcumstncessuronding the violations. The exhibis consisted of 1) a
Superior Cour opinion in Huelenbeck lv Fermininines and Hickex Sabino, Del. Sper,
(CA. No, NI2C.07-216 JAP, Parking, (une 7,2013) (Memo Op.) 2) a Superior Cou opinion
in Olver v Spiele, De. Super, C-A. No. NISC-O4135 JAP and Stinner y. Fleming, Del.
Supers CA. No, NISC-03-088 JAP, Paris, J at p. 4-6 Qn. 8, 2016) (Leter Op), 3) A
Supeior Court Opinion in Ricker», Brown and Gico, De. Super, C.A. No. N1SC-04.202
{AP (lune 3, 2016) (ORDER), 4) leer from hudge Parkins to ODC (dated June 3, 2016, 5)
2015 Cesiene of Compliance, 6) 2016 Cerificate of Compliance end 7) Master,
Associates, .A Independent Accountant Repr (dled December 20,206)

 

yw

Respondent was admite othe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of Delaware in 1999 Petton
ad Answer 1. Respondent i engaged inthe private practice of law and has the primary
responsibility for the books and record keeping snd management of his law fm McCann &
Wal, LLC. Peiton and Answer 1. Respondent hs been handing plan's wor, personal
injury, premise lib and motor vehicle cases since 2008, 2008. Tr a 16, Under Rule 4 of he
Delaware Superior Court Civ

 

Rules, the Plant

 

is required to file a praecipe directing the
‘manner and place of service ofthe Defendants. Petition and Answer 2. The Prothonotary then
issues process as indicated and delivers it tothe Sheriff or another person appointed by the Court
to serve the Defendant. Petition and Answer 2. If sevice cannot be made on the Defendant at
the address specified inthe paccipe the Stef or oer proces server returns the summons
the Superior Court marked non est invents (“non est”). Peon and Answer 3.

Under Supesir Count Civil Rule 4 (), service must be made withis 120 days of ling the
complet unless good cause is shown why service was not made and the Court sal miss the
seton a to that detendet witout prejudice. Tr. a 1718, A pit may flea motion withthe
Coun for an enlargement of time 1 effect service oF can move 1 appoint a special proces
serve. Tr. at 18. The Court may grant soch motions at its discretion, Te. at 18. Respondent
assigned the tsk of checking to sei service had been compleed in his caes this paralegals.
Te. a 42-43, Dung the tne period tissue inthis case, the parslegals did aot fallow up
confi service of process on the defendants. Tr, 73-74. Respondent sdmited that he di not
Properly follow up and didnot propel spevise the non-awyer staf to ensure tt sevice had
been complete. Tr. a8

As a result of Responden's fire to make reasonable effort locate the Defendants
timely move for an enlargement of ime, four () cases were dsmised by the Superior
Cour without prejudice. See Petition and Answer 6-27. The Supeior Cou found in those
cases tat Respondent filed to show doe diligence in suempling 10 locate and serve the
Aefendants, Set Ex. 1-3 and Petition and Answer‘ 11, 16,21, nd 26. On June 3, 2016, Judge
Parkins wrote to ODC expressing his concems over Respondent's conduct in filing lo locate
and serve a Defendant in one of he cates dismissed fr fie to make reasonable efforts
locate the Defendants oro timely move for an enlargement of time. Ex. 4.

In addition to the four eases noted above, thre were hien (13) dona! cases where

Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to locate and serve the Defendants orto timely fle
4 mation fora enlargement of tine which were 01 dismised bythe Superior Cou. Tr. at 3-
1 and Peston and Answer $128.

Respondent was the managing pane ofthe Wilminglon office of MsCean & Wall,
LLC. Tr 43-44. The Books and records were physically maintained in the Philadep

 

office,
but there were escrow and operating accounts at Delaware banks. Tr. at 65. Respondent
‘inconecty assumed thatthe Delaware books and records were being maininined in acordnce
withthe provision of Rule 1.15 A. Tr. at 48-49, Respondent did not recive any specific
assurances from the Philadelphia ofc to that effect. Tr: a6.

‘An audit of Respondent's law office books and records forthe six month prod ending
‘on September 30, 2016 was conducted by the Lawyee's Fund for Client Protection, E.7. The

Findings of the a

  

ere that Respondent's books and records were nat property

 

ined by

 

(@) incoretl titing accounts, (b) filing to maintain and preserve a client subsidiary ledger for
our of the six months reviewed, (¢)

 

ing to reconcile the end ofthe month's cash balances to
‘the total ofall client funds held for four ofthe six months, (4 in one mont, filing to reconcile
the end of the month cash balance with the total ofall client funds held of $2,986.00; and (e)
having checks or transfers in fiduciary sccounts oustanding for longer than six months. Tr. 44-
46, Respondent's 2015 and 2016 Certificates of Compliance contained misrepresentations a to
the status of McCann & Wall's books and records. Tr. at $3. Respondent did not identify all
‘attomey/nist accounts in Question 3.1 and responded yes to items 2.2, 2.3,2.6,2.7, 2.9 and 2.12
‘when he should have answered no. Tr, 0-53.

‘During the sanctions phase of the hearing, respondent admitted that he was privately
‘admonished by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2012 after filing a false preceptor’s certification
in connection with an applicant's admission to the Delaware ber, Tr. at 134-136, Respondent
testified atthe hearing that he was cooperative with the ODC's investigation and apologized to
the Board and the Superior Court for his conduct in the present matter. Tr. at 127-128.
Respondent further indicated that he has wken a numberof corrective measures to address his

issues with service of process and with maintaining his firm's books and records. Tr. at 78-86

 

and 130-134, Respondent alo offered the testimony of Rence Villio, « cried public
accountant who indicate ta she had been resined by Responden's frm in Sone of 2017 0
review the f's books on a quarely basis sod to perform precerifcntons to ensue
compliance with Rule 118. Tr, 120-12, Respondent sls offered the testimony of Robert
MeCann, Esquire, Mark Reardon, Esquire and Yvonne Takvorian Savill, Esquire (via afMavt)
regarding Respondent's good chance and reputation, Seer. at 10-112, Tr. $7.59 and Ex. 2.

‘Standard of Proof

‘The allegations of professional misconduct set forth in ODC's petition must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. (Disc. Proc. Rule 15 ()).
Findings on Violations of the Rules

Based on the Respondent's admissions and the evidence provided at the Hearing, the
Pane finds thatthe ODC has met its burden. Specifically, the Petition alleges, and the Answer,
1s amended, admis, nine violations ofthe rules ofthe Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional
Conduct as follows:

COUNT ONE: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 1.1 BY FAILING TO
PROVIDE COMPETENT REPRESENTATION TO CLIENTS,

Rule 1.1 provides: “a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.”
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skil, thoroughness and preparation,
reasonably necessary forthe representation.” Respondent violated Rule 1.1 by filing to make
reasonable efoto locate andlor serve the defendanis within the tne prescribed by Superior
‘Court Rale 4 () andor filing o fle timely motions to extend the tie fr sevice in seventeen
cases T0034,

COUNT TWO: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 1.3 BY FAILING TO
DILIGENTLY REPRESENT CLIENTS.

Rule 1.3 requires that “f] lawyer shal et with eatnable dligence and promptnes in
representing 1 client” Respondent violated Rule 1.3 by filing to make reasonable efforts to
locate enor serve the defendants within the time prescribed by Superior Court Rule 4() andlor

 

ling to file timely motions to extend the time for service in seventeen cases Tr. at 35-36,
COUNT THREE: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 3.4 (C) BY KNOWINGLY
DISOBEYING AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL.

Under Rule 3.4 (c) a lawyer is prohibited fom “(c) knowingly disobey an obligation
under the rules of a wibunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid
‘obligation exists”, Respondent violated Rule 3.4 (c) by filing to make reasonable efforts 10
locate and/or serve defendants within the 120 days required by Superior Court Civil Rule 4 ()
‘and/or filing to move for an extension of service during that 120 period. Tr. 30,33 and 36.

COUNT FOUR: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 53 BY FAILING TO
SUPERVISE NON-LAWYER ASSISTANTS.

Role 5.3 states in part “[wlith respect to a non-lawyer employed or retained by or
irect supervisory authority over the non-lawyer
shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the

sssocited with a lwyer:(b) a lawyer havi

 

‘professional obligations ofthe lawyer, and (c) a lawyer shal be responsible for conduct of such 2

person that would be «violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer
it... the lawyer hs dics supervisory auborty over the parton, and knows ofthe condet
sa time whea its consequences canbe avoided or minted but ils to tke resonable remedial,
scton.” Respondent violated Rule 53 by filing to supervise his employees and filing to have
reasonable safeguards in place which woul assur imely service of proces in seventeen cases
filed inthe Supevioe Cou. Tr 30,33 and 36.

count Fr

 

RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 84 (D) BY ENGAGING IN
CONDUCT PREJUDCIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Pursuant to Rule 84 (2) “iis profesional misconduct fra lawyer fo:
(4 engage in conduct that is prejudicial wo the administration of justice" Respondent violated
Rate 8.4 (4) by fling to make reasonable efforts to locate andor serve defendant within the
120 day required by Superior Cour Civil Rule 4() andor by

 

ng to move for an extension
of time for service during that 120 day peri

COUNT SIX: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 1.15(0) BY FAILING TO
MAINTAIN THE LAW FIRM’S BOOKS AND RECORDS.

Rae 1.15 () st fonh some ofthe requirements for maintenance of stmey books and

records and provides in part as follows:

“.. (2) Bank accounts maintained for fiduciary funds must be specifically designated as
“Rule 1.15A Attomey Trust Account” or “I.15A Trust Account" or “Rule 1.15A,
Attorney Escrow Account” or “I.15A Escrow Account,” and must be used only for funds
held in a fideiary capacity. A designation of the account as a “Rule I.1SA Attorney
‘Trust Account” of “1.15 Trust Account” or “Rule 115A Attorney Escrow Account” of
“I.15A Escrow Account,” must appear in the account tle on the bank statement, Other
‘elated statements, checks, deposit sips, and other documents maintained for fiduciary
funds, must contin, at 2 minimum, a designation of the account ae “Attorney Trust
‘Account or “Atiomey Escrow Account.” (3) Bank accounts and related statements,
‘checks, deposit sips, and other documents maintained for not-fiducary funds must be
specifically designated as Attorney Business Account” or “Attorney Operating Account,”
‘and must be used only for funds held ina non-fidsciary capecty..(7) A monthly
reconciliation for each bank account, matching totals {rom the cash recepls and cash
disbursement joumals withthe ending check register balance, must be performed... (8)

 

 
‘The check register balance foreach bank sccount must be reconciled monthly to the bank
statement balance...(12) With respect to all fiduciary accounts: (A) A subsidiny ledger
‘mst be maintained and preserved wit a separate account foreach client or third partyin
‘which cash receipts and cash disbursement transactions and monthly balances are
‘recorded. (B) Monthly listings of client or third party balances must be prepared showing
‘the name and belance of each clint or third party, and the total of all balances. (C) NO
funds disbursed fora client or third party must be in excess of funds received from that
client or third pat. If, however, through error funds disbursed fo a cient or third party
‘exceed finds received from that client or third party, the lawyer shall transfer funds fom
the non-fiduciary account ina timely manner to cover the excess disbursement. (D) The
reconciled (ota cash balance must agree with the total ofthe client or third party balance
listing. There shall be no unidentified client or third party funds, The bank reconciliation
fora fiduciary account is not complete unless there is agreement with the taal of cient or
third party accounts. (E) Ifa check has beer issued in an attempt to disburse funds, but
‘remains outstanding (that i, the check has not cleared the trust or escrow bank account)
six months or more from the date it was issued, a lawyer shall promptly take steps to
contact the payee to determine the reason the check was not deposited by the payee, and
shal issue a replacement check, as necessary and appropriate

‘Aller an audit by the lawyer's fund for client protection, Respondent was found to have

 

 

 

 

violated Rule 1.15 (@). Respondent violsted the rule by (a) incorrect

 

ing sccounts; (b)
Gailing 10 maintain and preserve a client subsidiary ledger forfour of the six months reviewed
(©) Baling to reconcile the end ofthe months cash balances to the otal ofall client funds held for
four ofthe six months; (4) in one month, filing to reconcile the end ofthe month cash balance
‘with the total of al cen funds held by $2,986.00; and (e) having checks or transfers in fiduciary
sccounts oustanding for longer than six months. Tr. 45 and 46,

COUNT SEVEN: RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 53 BY FAILING TO
‘SUPERVISE NON-LAWYER ASSISTANTS.

Rule $3 states in part: “[wth respect to @ non-lawyer employed oF retained by oF
‘associated with a lawyer: (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer
stall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the
‘professionel obligations ofthe lawyer; and (c) «Inwyer shall be responsible for conduct of sucha
‘person that would bea voletion ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by & lawyer

°
 

+ the lawyer. as direst supervisory authority ver the person, and knows ofthe conduct
st atime whe its consequences canbe wvoide o milgated but fl to tke reasonable remedial
section” Respondent violated Rule 5.3 by filing to have reasonable safeguards in pace which
‘woul asue an acurate socouming of his law practice and books and records in compliance
with he Roles and by ing o supervise his employes” conduct in msintinng his books and
recads.T. 46-47

COUNT EIGHT: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INVOLVING
[MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF RULE 84 ().
Rule 84 () provides that“ is professional misconduct for lawyer to (6) engage

 

conduct involving dishonesty, aud, deceit or misrepresenation.” Respondent violated Rule 84
(©) by Gling with the Supreme Court Cenificates of Compliance in 2015 and 2016 which

contained inaccurate statements regarding the status and maintenance of his law firm's books

 

and records. Tr. $0, $1 and $3.
‘COUNT Nu

 

RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO
‘THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VOOLATION OF RULE 84 (4).

Pursuant to Rule 8.4 (4) itis professional misconduct fora lawyer to:
(4) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Respondent violated
Rule 84 (4) by filing 2015 and 2016 Cenifiates of Compliance which included
‘misrepresentations relating to the maintenance ofthis law practice books and records,
Recommended Sanction

‘The ODC and Respondent jointly contend that the presumptive sanction i this mater isa
public reprimand with a two-year probation period with conditions. For the reasons

 

ry
{llow, the Panel recommends thatthe Respondent be subject toa public reprimand and a two
year probation with conditions.
Rationale for Recommended Sanction

{x making its recommendation, the Panel hes wilized the four-part framework set forth in
the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 as amended February 1992) (“ABA
Standards"). To promote consistency and prediciabilty in the imposition of disciplinary
sanctions, the Delaware Supreme Cour looks to the ABA Standards. In re Doughy, 832 A2d
‘724, 735-736 (Del. 2003) (citations omitted). The ABA Standards’ framework consider: (1) the
ethical duty violated (2) the lawyer's state of mind;

 

3) the actual or potential injury caused by
the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) aggravating and mitigating Factors.
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 Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1-15 (€), 3.4 (6), $3, 8.4 (6) and 8.4 (d) by fling to provide competent
representation to clients, by filing to diligently represent clients, by knowingly disobeying an
‘obligation under the rules of « wibundl, by filing o supervise his non-awyer assistants, by
‘engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, by fling to maintain his law
firm's books and records and engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation.

Under the ABA Standards, ths misconduct constituted violstions of duties owed by the
Respondent to clients (Rules 1.1 and 13, and violations of duties owed by Respondent tothe
legal system, (Rules 1.15 (4) and 53) violations of duties owed by Respondent to the Profession,
(Rates 3.4 (and 8.4 ()). See ABA Standards 4.0 6.0 and 7.0.

"
2. State of Mind,

‘The ODC contends, the Respondent agrees, and the Panel finds thatthe Respondent's
‘menial sate was negligence. Negligence is “the failure ofa lawyer to heed a substantial risk that
‘ireamstances exist or tha a result will follow, which failure isa deviation from the standard of
care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the simution." ABA standards definitions.
‘Respondent testified that he was the managing parner in charge ofthe firm's books and records.
‘Te, a 43-44, Respondent admitted the following violations of Rule 1.1.5 (}: multiple checks
were outstanding for longer than six months, accouns were incorrectly tiled, a fiduciary account
that should have been listed on the certificate of compliance was not listed, monthly client
subsidiary ledgers were not maintained in four or the six months reviewed, the adjusted bank
balance did not agree with the general ledger in four ofthe six months reviewed, the reconciled
‘end of month cash balances did aot ayree for the total of all elent funds held in four of the six
‘months reviewed, in one month the cliont subsidiary ledger was prepared but the reconciled end
‘of month cash balance differed from all client funds held by $2,986.00 and the frm did not
‘Prepare a monthly listing of client account balances for four ofthe six months reviewed. Tr, 44-
46,

Respondent testified that he delegated responsibilty for maintaining the books and
records to staff members in the Philadelphia office Tr. 46-47. Respondent further testified that
‘he incorrectly assumed thatthe books and records were being properly msntained and did not
adequately supervise his staff or take appropriate safeguards to ensure that they were properly
‘mainuained. Tr. 47-48. Respondent acted negligently by fling to take reasonable measures to
supervise his staff and ensure that appropriate safeguards were in place to maiotain compliance
 

5 (d). See, In re Mali, 2017 WL 2893921 (Del. Slip. Op.) and In Re Gray, 152
‘3d 581 (Del. 2016).

Regarding the misrepresentation on the Certificates of Compliance, the Respondent was
‘are of his obligations in accurately responding onthe certificate of compliance. T. at $0. The
Respondent further admitted that there were inaccuracies on the certificate of compliance. Tr. at
50453. Respondent acted negligently by filing accurately cenity the status of his law firm's
books and records to ensue that they were being properly maintained which resulted in a breach
of his duty to the legal system. See, Jn re Malik, 2017 WL 2893921 (Del. Slip. Op.)

Respondent testified that he was aware of the Rule 4 requirements for service of
complaint. Tr
complaint and he admited that he didnot adequately supervise his staf o make sure they were

 

17, Respondent's paralegals were tasked with following up on service ofthe

 

properly following up on service. Tr. at 42-43. Respondent acted negligently in filing to
sdequately supervise son-lawyerstfT to ensure that service was perfected.

{In light ofthe above, the Panel finds thatthe Respondent was negligent by filing to heed
the substantial risk that filure to take reasonable measures and enact appropriate safeguards
‘would result in his fim's books and records being impropesty maintained and in (ling 10
supervise non-lawyer staff o ensue that service had been perfected.

‘3. Actual or Potential Injury.

Respondent's clients and the legal system were actually or potentially harmed by
Respondents failure to adequately supervise his staf. Injury is defined as “harm toa client, the
public, the legal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct” ABA
standards, Definitions, Potential Injury is “harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the
profession that is reasonably foreseeable a the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but
for some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulled ffom the lawyer's
‘misconduct, ABA standards, Definitions. However, actual injury isnot required. See, eg. In re
‘Benson, 17 A.24 258, 262 (Del, 2001), Here, the Respondent filed to perfect service in
seventeen Superior Court cases resulting in a dismissal i four caves without prejudice, Tr, 74-
76. tn the cases

 

were dismissed, the Court wrote an opinion in tee ofthe cates Es. 13
‘Aller the four eases were dismise, the Respondent filed « new case under the savings sate
hich required the Couto proces new compli’ ad ewe new cat schedling onder. Tr.
9596, Respondent acknowledged that his condoct cased it liens and the legal system
inconvenience. Tr. at 129. Reponden’s actions resulted in potenti injury 4 the client as it
cused a delay in geting those cace othe stlement phase and atl nyt the eal system,
as itwasa wast of judicial resources. Tr. at 7-78.

Wit espect othe Lega system, potential injury existed the Court may have relied on
the C

 

ates of Compliance. See, In re Gray, 182 A34 S81 (Del, 206) (if the Coun is
unible to rely upon the ethiless ofthe seeeponing ceriations, the confidence in the
Public in the mstworhinss of layers will be less...(v}ith respect 10 the fling of the
Cerificate of Compliance, thre was an cal inj since the Cour belived the Respondent
was in compliance when he was no"). In ton, Respondent caused potent! injury to his
liens and othr panies, by

 

1 0 properly supervise his sta to ensure that his law Gm’
books and records were being maintained in compliance with Rule 1.1.5 (8). Se, In Re Benson,
714 A.2s 258, 262-263 (Del. 2001) (“A lawyer's duty to maintain proper books and records
exists fr the purpose of protecting not onl the lawyer but the lawyer's clients, and the fulure to
fil that duty presents serious risk tothe lawyer's client, even if ot actual harm results”)
4. Presumptive Sanction

In the Panel's view, analysis of the ethical dues violated by the Respondent, the
Respondents state of ind andthe potential for injury caused by Respondents misconduct ise
‘presumptive sanction of pubic reprimand with two year probation with conditions. The eis
utes violted direct the Panel to the follwing factors coniined in the ABA Standards: 4.43
tod 453 (Fr violations of Rules 11 and 1.3), 73 (for violation of Rules 1.15 and 5.3) and 6.13
(or violations of Rue 8.4()) and 6.23 (for violations of Rule 8.4 (8). Where, in his mater,
the conduct involves negligent acts with injury or potenti

 

injury these provisions point
‘Generally to a public reprimand as an appropriate sanction. See ABA Standards 4.43, 4.53, 6.13,
(623, and 7.3. ABA Standard 4.43 provides “(reprimand is generally pproprite when lawyer
is negligent and doesnot act with reasonable diligence in representing client, and causes injury
‘potential injury 10 a client” Respondent's conduct was negligent by filing to act with
reasonable diligence in following up on service andlor filing to appropriately supervise his stall
4 ensure that service had been perfected. Respondent's conduct caused potential injury to his
client's by delaying setlement of ther cases andor resolution of their pending cases.

‘ABA Standard 4.53 provides “(reprimand is generally appropriate when 2 lawyer: (8)
‘demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or procedures and causes injury or
‘potential injury to a client; or (b) is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent 0
handle « legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a client.” Respondent's conduct
demonstrated» failure to understand the requirements of Rule 4 () by filing wo perfect service
within 120 days of Gling the complaint and/or by filing to timely fle a motion to extend the
time period for service. Respondent's conduct caused potential injury to his clients by delaying
settlement of ther cases andor resolution oftheir pending cases.
‘ABA Standard 6.13 provides: “reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is
‘negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in ting remedial
‘ction when material information is being withheld, and causes injury or potential injury to &
party tothe legal proceeding, oF causes an adverse or potentilly adverse effect on the legal
proceeding.” Respondent's conduct was negligem by failing to take appropriate measures 10
‘ensure that the information provided in his certifcate of compliance was accurate. Respondent's
‘conduct caused injury and/or potential injury to the legal proceeding as an audit of his firm's
‘books and records revealed inaccuracies inthe certificate of compliance.

‘ABA. standard 6.23 provides: “reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer
‘negligently fais to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury 10 &
client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.”
Respondent acted negligently by Gling a certificate of compliance which contained inaccurate
information conceming the status of his law firm's books and records. Respondent's conduct
resulied in ectual and/or potential injury to his cients and the legal system.

‘ABA standard 73 provides “{rleprimand is generally approprisie when a lawyer
negligently engages in conduct that isa violation of @ duty owed as » professional, and causes

injury or potential injury toa client, the public or the legal system.” Respondent's conduct was

 

appropriate measures to supervise his staff o ensure that his fin’s books and records were in
‘compliance with Rule 1.15, Respondent's conduct caused potential injury to his clients and
sctul and/or potential injury tothe legal system. The presumptive sanction must then factor in
the presence or absence of ay mitigating or aggravating factors.
‘5. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors.
‘ABA Standard 9.22 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of aggravating faciors:

(© prior disciplinary offenses;

(@) dishonest or selfish motive;

(©) apatern of misconduct;

(4) ruliple offenses;

(6) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally filing to comply with

rules or orders of the disciplinary agency,

(D submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the

Aisiplinry proces;

() refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

 

(0) vulnerability of victim;
(@ substantial experience inthe practice of law;
@) indifference to making restitution;
(Wilegst conduct, including that involving the use of controled substances,
(ABA Standard § 9.22)

Respondent and the Office of

 

sgrevning fcoes apply: 1) prior disciplinary ofentes, 2) patie of miscondct, 3) muliple
fferss, and 4 substunial experience in the pracce of lav. The pel oncus, Respondent bad
* prior disciplinary offense in 2012, «private admonition. Ex. 8. Respondent hada pater of
risconduct os thee were multiple instances where he filed to ct diligent in complying with
the service requirements of Rule 4G) andlor fed to timely Mea mation fran enlargemeat of
ime to etecuae service. Es.

 

Petition and Answer 11, 16,21, 26, and 28, nd Tr. at 33-
134. Respondent also had multiple offenses because in addition tothe failure to act diligently in
ceffectuating service noted above, Respondent also filed cerificates of compliance with
inaccurate statements and multiple deficiencies were noted during the audit in Respondent's
‘maintenance of his fiom's books and records. Tr. 44-46, and Tr. at $3. Respondent has
substantial experience in the practice of law, given the Respondents eighwen years at a member
ofthe Bar having been edmited in 1999. Tr. atp. 15 and Answer 1. The panel note that these
‘ggravating factors do not justify imposition ofa sanction more severe than a public reprimand,
particulary in light ofthe numerous mitigating Factor discussed below.
ABA Sundard 9.32 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be
considered in mitigation:
(2) absence of prior disciplinary record;
() absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive;
(€) personal or emotional problems;
(4) timely good faith effort to make restitution o to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(€) fll and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attude toward proceedings;
(0 inexperience inthe practice of law;
(f) chantcter or reputation;
(physica disability;
(mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when:
(1) there is medical evidence thatthe Respondent is affected by a chemical dependency
or mental disability,
(2) the chemical dependency or mental disability ceused the misconduct;
2) the respondent's recovery ffom the chemical dependency or menial disability is
‘demonstrated by « meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and
(4) the recovery arested the misconduct and recurrence ofthat misconduct is unlikely,
@) ely in disciplinary proceedings;
(imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(remorse;
(0m) remoteness of prior offenses.
(ABA Standard § 9:32)
‘The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent stipulated thatthe following
‘mitigating factors apply: 1) absence of a selfish or dishonest mative; 2) ti

 

ly good faith effort
40 rectify the consequences of misconduct; 3) cooperative atitude toward disciplinary
Proceedings; 4) character or reputation; and 5) remorse, The panel concurs.

‘The Panel recognizes thatthe Respondent did not appear to have a dishonest or selfish
‘motive that resulted in the violation at issue, T. 66 and Tr. 73-78. Respondent has since taken &
‘number of steps to rectify the misconduct such as repeated efforts to address the service issues
‘and books and records violations. Tr. at 7885, and Tr. 120-121, Respondent displayed
cooperative atitude toward the disciplinary proceedings and remorse, Tr. a 97-98 and Tr at 12

 

128. The Panel notes that Respondent during his testimony seemed to be genuinely remorsefil.
“The panel finds and the record supports that Respondent has a good character and reputation, See
‘Te at 10-112, Tr $7-59 and Ex. 2.

Nevertheless, the Pane finds that these mitigating factors cannot negate the sanction of
public reprimand. The Panel believes that a private sanetion would not serve the purpose of

 

providing notice to the legal community and the public tha repetitive violations with respect 10
‘maintenance of proper financial books and records are taken very seriously bythe Board and the

Delaware Supreme Cour. See Jn re Benson, 774 A.2é 258, 262-263 (De, 2001) (Gnding th

 

private sanction may be appropriate for an isolated record-keeping violation, but negligent
fit for thee consecutive yeast determine whether Cerifets of Complinnce we scurte
rele pater of misconduct justifying public reprimand). The Panel fuer believes that»
private sonton woul not servo noi he legal community hat storeys are responsible for
propery supervising ther tft ensure compliance with he service ues.

6 Precedent

Lastly, the Panel believes chat

 

recommending » public reprimand in this mater is
consistent with Delaware Supreme Cour precedent. “The objectives of any lawyer sanction
shouldbe wo protect the publi, o advance the administration of tice, to preserve conience in
the legal profession, and to deter other Iwyjers fom similr misconduct.” In re Dough, 832
‘A24724, 735-736 (Del 2005) (ciation omiued)

With regard o an appropriate sanction, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary
‘Counsel sugesed snd the pane! agrees tat he following cases wit similar ndings offre
to property mainin books and records and inaccurate infomation on the cereale of
compliance support a pblicreprimand wih probation: In re Malt, 2017 EL2893921 (Del Sip.
(py; In re Cosmo, 160 A:44 1134 (Del, 2017; fy Re Gray, 152 A38 851 (Del 2016) In re
Woods, \83 A24 1223 (Del. 2016; In re Stl, 2009 WI. 4573243 (Del, Dee 4 2008); In re
(Brien 2005 WL 3143363 (Del. Nov. 22, 205}; re Thompson, 2063 WI. 2EBES (De. Fe.

 

2003); In re Martin, 2011 WL 2473325 (Del. June 2, 2011); n re Froehlich, 838 A.24 1117
(Del. 2003); In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724 (Del, 2003); fn re Benson, 774 A.24 258 (Del. 2001};
and fn re MacPherson, 2001 EL 760866 (Del. June 14, 2001). A public reprimand is also
sepropint whore thre islet neget combined wih ther Want dn Re Mil, 99 A34
22 (Del. 2014). The Pane recommends api reprimand and =o year probation wth he
foltowingcondions: 1) Respondent shall ve emai hy a iensed public cco! wh it
‘mowicdgcablc of the accountng postures wed by the Supreme Cour for Rue 115 (2) ads
tnd has atendd the LECP wining for ecoonants for hier 201% and 2019 Ceres of
Compliance rsponing he sans of hisher compli, or lek theca, wth he equements of
‘ul 1.15 and Role 1.154; (2) Respondent shall pode ODC wih copy ofthe eared re
certiieton; and (3) Respondent sal pay the coms asocnted wi the Inveigaion of hie
smanerby OC, nding the cess of te LECP abt

Conclsion.

‘Based onthe forgoing consideration, the Pane recommends action of the Board hat
the uneon st forth in Seton 6 uf this Report be imoaed upon he Respond, including he
imposition of cos of these disciplinary proceedings, purstnt to Delaware Lawyer” Rule of
Disciplinary Procedure 27

Respecflly submited,

=
Seat apa
Dee
ina Beat
 

‘sPpropnite where there is client neglect combined with other violations. Jn Re Milks, 99 A.3d
228 (Del. 2014). The Panel recommends 3 public reprimand and a two year probation with the
following conditions: (1) Respondent shall have an audit bya licensed public acount who is
‘knowledgeable ofthe accounting procedures used by the Supreme Court for Rule 1.15 (4) audits
snd has altended the LECP taining for accountants for hishher 2018 and 2019 Cenifcates of
Compliance, reporting the statu of his/her complince, or lck thereof, with the requirements of
‘Role 1.15 and Rule 1.154; (2) Respondent shall provide ODC with a copy ofthe required pre=
‘certification; and (3) Respondent shall pay the costs associated with the investigation ofthis
‘matter by ODC, including the costs ofthe LECP au

Conctusion.

‘Based on the foregoing considerations, the Panel recommends as action of the Bustd that
the sanctions set fort in Sctin 6 ofthis Repor be impossd upon the Respondent, including the
imposition of costs of these disciplinary procsedngs, pursuant to Delaware Lawyers” Rule of
Disciplinary Procedure 27.

 

Respectfully submited,

 

Davdre A McCartney, Esquire. Chis
Date:

 

Daniel Woleon, Ir, Exquie