Case Title: IMO a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware

Citation: 

Docket Number: 10, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER 
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME 
COURT OF DELAWARE: 
 
BRIAN P. GLANCY, 
 
Respondent.  
§ 
§  No. 10, 2021 
§ 
§  Board Case No. 114137-B 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:   January 26, 2021 
Decided:   February 5, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-
REEVES, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
It appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding.  On January 8, 2021 a 
panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed its 
Report with this Court, recommending that the respondent, Brian P. Glancy, 
be publicly reprimanded and subject to specific conditions.  Neither the Office 
of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) nor Glancy has filed any objections to the 
Board’s report.  
(2) 
The Court has considered the matter carefully.  Glancy admitted 
the ethical violations alleged in the ODC’s petition against him.  The Board 
carefully considered Glancy’s ethical violations, his negligent state of mind, 
the potential injury and actual injury, the presumptive sanction, and all of the 
 
2 
applicable aggravating and mitigating factors.  Under the circumstances, we 
find the Board’s recommendation of a public reprimand and the imposition of 
specific 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 Report filed 
on January 8, 2021 (attached hereto) is 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: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
                             Chief Justice  
 
 
Page 1 of 28 
 
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
OF 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: 
 
 
BRIAN P. GLANCY,  
 
 
Respondent. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
  CONFIDENTIAL 
 
   Board Case No. 114137-B 
 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD 
UPON THE PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE 
I.  
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND  
 
Pending before a panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the 
“Board”) is a Petition for Discipline filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (the 
“ODC”) on September 2, 2020, in Board Case No. 114137–B (the “Petition”) against 
Brian P. Glancy, Esquire (“Respondent”), a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court 
of the State of Delaware.   
 
The Petition alleged violations of Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of 
the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.  See Petition ¶¶ 32-39.  
Respondent, through his counsel, Charles Slanina, Esquire, filed an Answer to the 
Petition on September 22, 2020 (the “Answer”).  
EFiled:  Jan 08 2021 05:20PM EST 
Filing ID 66240102
Case Number 10,2021
 
Page 2 of 28 
 
 
In accordance with a Notice of Hearing issued October 12, 2020, the Board 
convened a hearing (the “Hearing”) by the panel on November 12, 2020.1  The 
members of the panel of the Board were Theresa Ballard, Carolyn M. McNeice, and 
Joseph C. Schoell, Chair (the “Panel”).  Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esquire, 
represented the ODC.  Charles Slanina, Esquire, represented Respondent. 
 
On November 11, 2020, the ODC and Respondent submitted to the Panel a 
Stipulation of Admitted Facts and Violations and Joint Recommendation of 
Sanctions (the “Stipulation”).  Appended to the Stipulation were eighteen Exhibits, 
which were identical to the Exhibits appended to the ODC’s Petition.   
 
At the Hearing, the Panel heard testimony from Respondent, and from Brian 
F. Funk, Esquire, a member of the Delaware Bar.  
II. 
FACTUAL FINDINGS 
 
Since Respondent’s Answer had admitted the violations alleged in the 
Petition, the ODC, Respondent, and the Panel treated the Hearing as relating 
primarily to the appropriate sanction. (Tr. 5:22-7:11 (Opening Statement of Mr. 
Slanina))   
                                               
 
1  In the interests of minimizing health risks associated with the COVID-19 virus, 
the Panel’s Hearing was conducted remotely through the Zoom platform.  The 
transcript of the Hearing was circulated to the members of the Panel on December 
28, 2020.  The transcript of the Hearing is cited in this Report and Recommendation 
as “Tr. __.”   
 
Page 3 of 28 
 
 
The Exhibits submitted with the Stipulation consist of:  
(1)  
A Certificate of Formation for Strata Law-DE, LLC, a Delaware limited 
liability company, dated as of October 13, 2016;  
 
(2)  
Email correspondence of Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Slanina dated February 
5, 2019;  
 
(3)  
A Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) account statement for the 
Strata Law Delaware Real Estate Settlement Account (account no. 
) for the period April 1 through April 30, 2017, with 
outstanding check detail and trial balance report;  
 
(4)  
A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Real 
Estate Settlement Account (account no. 
) for the period 
October 1 through October 31, 2017, with outstanding check detail and 
trial balance report;  
 
(5)  
A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Real 
Estate Settlement Account (account no.
) for the period 
February 1 through February 28, 2018, with reconciliation statement;  
 
(6)  
A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Real 
Estate Settlement Account (account no. 
) for the period 
August 1 through August 31, 2018;  
 
(7)  
A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Real 
Estate Settlement Account (account no. 
) for the period 
September 1 through September 30, 2018;  
 
(8)  
Wells Fargo account statements for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
December 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017;  
 
(9)  
A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
May 1 through May 31, 2018;  
 
 
Page 4 of 28 
 
(10)  A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
June 1 through June 30, 2018;  
 
(11)  A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
July 1 through July 31, 2018;  
 
(12)  Email correspondence of Respondent and Jenn Letzkus of Community 
Closing Network (“CCN”) dated July 9, 2018, together with 
correspondence to Respondent from Bunny J. Christopher, Executive 
Director of the Lawyer Fund for Client Protection (the “LFCP”) dated 
July 9, 2018;  
 
(13)  Email correspondence of Jenn Letzkus of CCN with Wendell Sammons 
of Wells Fargo dated July 16 and July 17, 2018;  
 
(14)  A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
August 1 through August 31, 2018;  
 
(15) A Wells Fargo account statement for the Strata Law Delaware Rule 
1.15A Attorney Trust Account (account no. 
) for the period 
September 1 through September 30, 2018;  
 
(16)  Three notices from Wells Fargo to the ODC dated September 12, 2018, 
September 20, 2018, and September 25, 2018;  
 
(17)  Internet printouts from the Louisiana Secretary of State related to 
certain businesses associated with Patricia L Howell, with a mailing 
address located in Lafayette, Louisiana; and  
 
(18)  Respondent’s Certificates of Compliance, as submitted to the Delaware 
Supreme Court for 2017 (submitted March 1, 2017) and 2018 
(submitted February 28, 2018). 
   
 
The Exhibits are not disputed, have been stipulated to by the parties, and are 
deemed admitted into evidence by the Panel.   
 
Page 5 of 28 
 
 
Based on the factual allegations of the Petition admitted by Respondent and 
the credible uncontroverted testimony received at the Hearing from Respondent, and 
the submitted exhibits, the Panel makes the factual findings which follow. 
 
Respondent is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware, having 
been admitted in 1986.  (Stipulation ¶ I (1); Tr. 10:3-5)  Since his admission to the 
Bar, Respondent has been engaged in the practice of law, initially with the law firm 
of O’Donnell & Hughes and later with the firms of Schlusser & Reiver, and Hughes, 
Sisk & Glancy.  (Tr. 10:6-11:18)  Respondent started as a general practitioner, but 
over time his practice gravitated toward transactional work and residential real estate 
settlements in particular.  (Tr. 11:19-12:1)  In 2002, Respondent commenced 
employment with a Maryland-based law firm called Bouland & Brush, LLC.  The 
Bouland & Brush firm was affiliated with Fountainhead Title Group 
(“Fountainhead”), and Respondent handled real estate closings for the firm in 
Delaware and served as its only Delaware attorney.  (Tr. 12:2-13:4) 
 
From 2008 until October 2016, Respondent was employed by and managed 
the Delaware office of Strata Law, LLC (“Strata Law”).  Strata Law was a Delaware 
limited liability company owned by two Maryland attorneys who had started with 
Fountainhead, which had merged with a different company known as RGS Title.  
(Tr. 13:5-14:4)  At all times relevant to the Petition, Respondent was responsible for 
certifying that the books and records for the Delaware office of Strata Law were in 
 
Page 6 of 28 
 
compliance with Rule 1.15 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  (Stipulation ¶ I (2); Tr. 14:5-10) 
 
The Delaware office of Strata Law maintained two accounts with Wells Fargo 
(together, the “Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts”): (i) the Delaware Real 
Estate Settlement Account (Account No.
) (“Account 
”), and 
(ii) the Delaware Rule 1.15A Attorney Trust Account (Account No. 
) 
(“Account
”).2 
 
In the fall of 2016, Strata Law was sold to a different Maryland-based title 
company called Community Closing Network (as defined above, CCN).  (Tr. 14:19-
15:2)  In October 2016, Respondent formed Strata Law-DE, LLC (“Strata Law-
DE”), as a new entity to continue his practice with the “Strata Law” name.  
(Stipulation ¶ I (5); Tr. 15:3-22)  Respondent opened new trust accounts for Strata 
Law-DE with M&T Bank.  Respondent did not close the Strata Law Wells Fargo 
Trust Accounts.  (Stipulation ¶ I (7); Tr. 15:23-16:12) 
 
As of December 31, 2016, there were at least 136 checks outstanding in 
Account
.  The checks had been issued between February 2013 and September 
                                               
 
2  According to Respondent’s Certificates of Compliance, the full title for Account 
 was “Strata Law, LLC, Rule 1.15A Attorney Trust Account/Real Estate 
Settlement Account.”  The full title for Account 
 was “Strata Law, LLC IOLTA 
Delaware Real Estate Settlement Account DE Rule 1.15A Attorney Trust Account.”  
(See Stipulation, Exhibit 18, Item 3.1)   
 
Page 7 of 28 
 
2016.  (Stipulation ¶ I (8), Exhibit 3)  The accounts had been used for a large volume 
of real estate settlements, and the amounts of the outstanding checks were comprised 
of many small sums.  (Tr. 21:21-23:22)3 
 
From December 2016 through September 30, 2017, Respondent continued to 
use Account 
 for real estate transactions.  (Stipulation ¶ I (15), Exhibit 8) 
 
At some point in time after the closing of the original Strata Law firm, 
Respondent no longer received account information related to the Strata Law Wells 
Fargo Trust Accounts. (Tr. 17:1-11)  Respondent understood that the new owners of 
the old Strata Law firm were safeguarding and managing the Strata Law Wells Fargo 
Trust Accounts.  (Tr. 28:19-29:6)  In early 2018, Respondent heard from one of 
Strata Law’s founders that they intended to wind down all of the Stata Law accounts, 
and escheat any remaining funds to the State of Maryland.  Respondent objected to 
any proposal to escheat property for Delaware real estate settlements under a 
Maryland escheat procedure.  (Tr. 17:12-22) 
 
During May 2018, a total of six unauthorized electronic transfers were made 
out of Account
.  The account statement for Account
 identifies transfers 
totaling $13,217.55 out of Account
 to “Business to Business ACH Debit – 
                                               
 
3  Respondent explained in his testimony at the Hearing that the Strata Law firm had 
been handling “50, 60 plus settlements a month over many years.”  (Tr. 22:4-5) 
 
Page 8 of 28 
 
Capital One Phone.”  All of the entries include the name “Patricia.”  (Stipulation ¶ I 
(16), Exhibit 9) 
 
During June 2018, a total of twelve unauthorized electronic transfers were 
made out of Account
.  This includes ten transfers totaling $17,358.28 to 
“Business to Business ACH Debit – Capital One Phone,” and two transfers totaling 
$719.93 to “ATT Payment.”  All twelve transactions contain the name “Patricia” at 
the end of the entry.  (Stipulation ¶ I (17), Exhibit 10) 
 
During July 2018, ten unauthorized electronic transfers were made out of 
Account
.  Eight transfers totaling $13,358.01 were transferred from Account 
 to “Business to Business ACH Debit – Capital One Phone.”  These eight 
transfers include the name “Patricia” at the end of the entry.  Two other transfers 
totaling $1,260.63 were to “Lafayette Consol.”  These transfers included the notation 
“Strata LLC” in the entry.  (Stipulation ¶ I (18), Exhibit 11) 
 
On July 9, 2018, Respondent was notified by the LFCP that Strata Law-DE 
had been selected for audit by the LFCP.  (Stipulation, Exhibit 12)  Respondent 
forwarded the correspondence notifying him of the audit to Jenn Letzkus with CCN.  
Ms. Letzkus replied and informed Respondent that Account 
 had not been 
reconciled since September 30, 2017  (Stipulation ¶ I (19), Exhibit 12)   
 
On July 16, 2018, Wendell Sammons, a Vice President with Wells Fargo, 
notified Respondent and Ms. Letzkus of unusual activity in Account 
.  On July 
 
Page 9 of 28 
 
17, 2018, Ms. Letzkus responded to Mr. Sammons (copying Respondent) that the 
ACH transactions in Account 
 were fraudulent and the account should be frozen 
from ACH transactions.  (Stipulation ¶ I (20), Exhibit 13)  Based on his 
correspondence with Wells Fargo and Ms. Letzkus, Respondent understood that any 
unauthorized activity in connection with the accounts had been halted and that 
“everything was taken care of and safe.” (Tr. 18:6-22)   
 
Notwithstanding the July 17, 2020 correspondence with Wells Fargo, Account 
 was subject to further unauthorized transactions in August and September 
2018.  During August 2018, $100,500 was transferred from Account 
 to 
Account 
.  Thereafter, twelve unauthorized electronic transfers totaling 
$22,721.63 were made from Account 
 to “Business to Business ACH Debit – 
Capital One Mobile.”  The entries for these transactions included the name “Patricia” 
or “Dieguez” at the end of each entry.  Nine unauthorized transfers, totaling 
$73,976.94, were made from Account 
 to “Business to Business ACH Debit - 
The Beet, A Cold Sale.”  These two transfers included the name “Brian Glancy” at 
the end of the entry (Stipulation ¶ I (21), Exhibit 14)   
 
In September 2018, six unauthorized electronic transfers were made from 
Account
.  The transfers totaled $9,502.58 and were to “Business to Business 
ACH Debit – Capital One Mobile.”  The six transfers include the name “Dieguez” 
 
Page 10 of 28 
 
at the end of the entry.  Three of the transfers were returned for insufficient funds 
(Stipulation ¶ I (22), Exhibit 15) 
 
Respondent testified that he learned later that, after the activity in the Strata 
Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts was reported as fraudulent and unauthorized in 
July 2018, some person called Wells Fargo pretending to be Respondent and had the 
accounts un-frozen.  (Tr. 18:16-22) 
 
Between September 12 and September 25, 2018, Wells Fargo sent three 
notices of overdrafts on Account 
 to the ODC.  (Stipulation ¶¶ I (23-25), Exhibit 
16) 
 
To summarize, over the course of 2018 the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust 
Accounts were subject to numerous unauthorized and fraudulent transfers during the 
period from May 2018 through September 2018.  In all, these transactions resulted 
in theft in the amount of $150,854.92.  (Stipulation ¶ I (33))  It is undisputed that 
Respondent had no knowledge of or involvement with the unauthorized electronic 
transfers as summarized above.  (See Stipulation ¶¶ I (16-18, 21-22); Tr. 21:15-20) 
 
In his testimony before the Panel, Respondent provided additional 
information and background related to the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts, 
and what was learned concerning the unauthorized transfers from those accounts in 
2018.  After learning of the unauthorized transfers, Respondent was informed that 
there was a lengthy investigation focusing on fraud committed by an individual in 
 
Page 11 of 28 
 
the State of Louisiana.  (Tr. 18:23-21:9)  Respondent understood that state or federal 
law enforcement authorities were involved in the investigative process, but was not 
contacted by such authorities.  (Tr. 20:4-12)  Although certain evidence submitted 
in this matter suggests that an individual named Patricia L. Howell of Louisiana may 
had some involvement with the unauthorized transfers, the Panel is unable to discern 
exactly how the fraudulent transfers from the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust 
Accounts were accomplished or who caused or facilitated the fraudulent activity.  
(See Stipulation, Exhibits 9 & 17; Tr. 18:23-19:13) 
 
In an effort to address and remediate the fraud committed with respect to the 
Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts, Respondent opened a new account with 
about $60,000 of his own funds.  Respondent has endeavored to find payees for 
checks issued from the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts, and to pay amounts 
due to such payees to the extent that he can locate them.  As of the date of the 
Hearing, Respondent had paid out approximately $35,000.00 to payees that he was 
able to identify and locate.  (Tr. 23:23-24:17)  As of the date of the Hearing, 
Respondent indicated that he expected to get through the backlog of payees for the 
Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts in about four months, and to pay those who 
could be located with reasonable effort.  (Tr. 36:6-37:21)  The remediation efforts 
undertaken by Respondent have not been assisted with any funds recovered from 
 
Page 12 of 28 
 
those committing the fraud from the accounts.  Nor has Respondent been assisted by 
the former principals of Strata Law or Wells Fargo.  (Tr. 19:14-20:3; 21:10-14) 
 
Respondent’s Certificates of Compliance, submitted pursuant to Rule of 
Professional Conduct 1.15 
for the years 2017 and 2018, contained 
misrepresentations concerning the status of Strata Law’s books and records.  
Respondent answered “YES” when he should have answered “NO” to items 2.5, 2.6, 
2.9 and 2.12.4  The Stipulation and Respondent’s Answer concede the 
misrepresentations. (Stipulation ¶ I (31); Answer ¶ 31)  Respondent testified that he 
included the Strata Law accounts on his Certificates of Compliance without giving 
a great deal of thought to the matter, and that he understood the accounts remained 
his responsibility but thought they were being properly maintained.  (Tr. 27:20-
                                               
 
4  On the Certificates of Compliance, Question 2.5 states:  “Other than the minimum 
amount of non-fiduciary funds allowable (no more than $2000 to cover bank service 
charges), only funds held in a fiduciary capacity are held in any attorney trust/escrow 
account.  Other funds, including earned fees, are not commingled with escrow 
funds.”  Question 2.6 states:  “Check register balances for all bank accounts are 
reconciled monthly to bank statement balances.”  Question 2.9 states:  “With respect 
to attorney trust/escrow account(s), the reconciled end-of-month cash balance agrees 
with the total of the client balance listing of the client subsidiary ledger.”  Question 
2.12 states:  “With respect to attorney trust/escrow account(s), for those fiduciary 
funds which should be disbursed and for which checks have been issued in an 
attempt to disburse funds, all checks have cleared within six months from the date 
of issuance OR for each check which has not cleared within six months, steps are 
promptly being taken to contact the payees to determine the reason the checks were 
not deposited, and replacement checks are being issued, as necessary or appropriate; 
with regard to abandoned or unclaimed trust funds, these account(s) comply with 
Supreme Court Rule 72.”  (Stipulation, Exhibit 18) 
 
Page 13 of 28 
 
28:12)  Respondent acknowledged that he should have been attending to the 
accounts to resolve any unpaid checks.  (Tr. 28:12-14) 
 
Respondent was the subject of discipline for similar conduct to the conduct at 
issue in this matter in 2006.  (Stipulation ¶ II (3))  On November 1, 2006, the ODC 
issued a private admonition to Respondent related to the books and records of the 
firm of Bouland & Brush.  The private admonition related to the failure to timely 
reconcile accounts of Bouland & Brush and resulting overdrafts on the escrow 
account for which Respondent was responsible while he was employed with 
Bouland & Brush.  (Tr. 24:22-26:20)   
 
During his testimony before the Panel, Respondent expressed remorse over 
the problems with the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts and related matters.  
He testified that the experience was personally embarrassing and mortifying.  (Tr. 
26:21-28:14)  He also took responsibility his actions.  (Tr. 28:15-29:8) 
 
Following the conclusion of Respondent’s testimony, the Panel heard 
testimony from Brian F. Funk, Esquire.  Mr. Funk is a member of the Bar of the 
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.  (Tr. 40:7-11)  Mr. Funk testified that he 
knows Respondent professionally, and Respondent has an excellent reputation 
among members of the Bar who practice the area of real estate, and among other real 
estate professionals.  (Tr. 42:17-43:22)  Mr. Funk also testified that Respondent has 
 
Page 14 of 28 
 
helped him with complex real estate issues for the benefit of his clients.  (Tr. 41:19-
42:16) 
III. 
STANDARD OF PROOF 
 
Allegations of professional misconduct must be established by the ODC by 
clear and convincing evidence.  Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary 
Procedure, Rule 15(c).  Based upon Respondent’s admission of the material 
elements of the violations in both his Answer and the Stipulation, the Panel finds 
that the ODC has satisfied its burden.    
IV. 
FINDINGS ON VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES 
COUNT ONE:  
RESPONDENT FAILED TO 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.  By failing to 
safeguard client funds in Account
 and Account
, Respondent exposed 
funds in these accounts to theft of $150,854.92 in violation of Rule 1.15(a). 
(Stipulation ¶¶ I (32-33)) 
COUNT TWO:  
RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND 
RECORDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(d) 
 
Rule 1.15(d) sets forth detailed and specific requirements for the maintenance 
of attorneys’ books and records and handling of practice-related funds.  Respondent 
failed to properly maintain his books and records in violation of Rule 1.15(d) in that: 
 
Page 15 of 28 
 
(1) Respondent failed to prepare monthly bank reconciliations for Account
; 
(2) Respondent failed to take steps to identify and contact the payees of more than 
130 outstanding checks for Account 
; (3) Respondent failed to comply with the 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 73 with respect to abandoned or unclaimed 
trust funds for Account 
; and (4) Respondent failed to promptly transfer earned 
legal fees out of Account 
.  (Stipulation ¶ I (34-35)) 
COUNT THREE: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INVOLVING 
MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8.4(c) 
 
Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  By filing with 
the Delaware Supreme Court in 2017 and 2018 Certificates of Compliance which 
included inaccurate representations relating to the maintenance of Strata Law’s 
books and records, Respondent engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation in 
violation of Rule 8.4(c).  (Stipulation ¶¶ I (36-37)) 
COUNT FOUR: 
RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL 
TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION 
OF RULE 8.4(d) 
 
Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is 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 attorneys in the Certificates 
of Compliance filed each year in the administration of justice governing the practice 
 
Page 16 of 28 
 
of law in Delaware.  By filing with the Delaware Supreme Court in 2017 and 2018 
Certificates of Compliance which included inaccurate representations relating to the 
maintenance of Strata Law’s books and records, Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d).  
(Stipulation ¶¶ I (38-39)) 
V.  
RECOMMENDED SANCTION 
 
In their Stipulation, the ODC and Respondent submitted a Joint 
Recommendation of Sanction, consisting of (1) a public reprimand, (2) a condition 
requiring that, if Respondent serves as a Managing Partner in charge of books and 
records of a firm, then for a period of two years, Respondent shall with his Certificate 
of Compliance submit an affidavit of a licensed certified public accountant, 
certifying that such firm’s law practice books, records, and accounts have been 
maintained in compliance with Rule 1.15 and all payroll tax obligations of such firm 
have been satisfied, and (3) Respondent’s prompt payment of costs of this 
proceeding.  (Stipulation § III) 
 
The Panel agrees with the Joint Recommendation of Sanction.  In addition, 
the Panel proposes an additional condition, as part of the sanction:  that Respondent 
periodically report to the ODC on his efforts to contact payees of any outstanding 
checks issued on the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts, with such frequency 
and in such detail as the ODC shall direct, and that Respondent continue to make 
 
Page 17 of 28 
 
good faith, reasonable efforts to expeditiously resolve any issues related to such 
outstanding checks to the extent necessary to resolve such issues.   
VI. 
RATIONALE FOR THE RECOMMENDED SANCTION 
 
In making its recommendation, the Panel utilized 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 predictability in 
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Delaware Supreme Court looks to the 
ABA Standards.  In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724, 735-736 (Del. 2003) (citations 
omitted).  The ABA Standards’ framework considers: (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. Id.; accord In re 
Goldstein, 990 A.2d 404, 408 (Del. 2010). 
 
1.  
The Ethical Duties Violated 
 
The ODC alleged, Respondent admitted, and the Panel determines that 
Respondent committed misconduct in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 
1.15(a) (failing to safeguard client funds); 1.15(d) (failing 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 violations of 
 
Page 18 of 28 
 
duties owed by Respondent to clients (Rules 1.15(a) and (d)), and violations of duties 
owed by Respondent to the legal system (Rules 8.4 (c) and (d)).  See ABA Standards 
4.0 and 6.0. 
 
2. 
State of Mind 
 
The Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct was negligent, which is defined in 
the ABA Standards as “the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that 
circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the 
standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.”  ABA 
Standards § III (DEFINITIONS).  
 
With respect to Respondent’s violations of Rule 1.15, the ODC alleges, and 
Respondent admits, negligent conduct.  (See Stipulation ¶ I (32))  The Panel concurs 
and finds that Respondent’s conduct was negligent with respect to Respondent’s 
failure to maintain books and records as required by Rule 1.15. 
 
As it relates to Respondent’s violations of Rule 8.4, the issue of Respondent’s 
state of mind is a closer question.  Respondent’s conduct in submitting Certificates 
of Compliance in 2017 and 2018 that included misrepresentations comes close to 
amounting to “knowing” violation of the Rules.  See In re Stull, 2009 WL 4573243, 
at *1, *6 (Del. Dec. 4, 2009) (disposition reported at 985 A.2d 391 (Table)) 
(approving Board determination of that attorney acted with “knowledge” when 
attorney took “head in the sand” approach, despite being consciously aware of 
 
Page 19 of 28 
 
obligations to manage law office and accurately complete Certificates of 
Compliance).  Here, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s conduct with respect to 
the Certificates of Compliance meets the standard of negligence.  The Panel bases 
its findings on Respondent’s testimony that in submitting his Certificates of 
Compliance for 2017 and 2018, (1) he did not focus on the inclusion of the old Strata 
Law accounts in addition to the new accounts he established for Strata Law-DE (Tr. 
27:20-28:12), and (2) although he had not been involved with the Strata Law Wells 
Fargo Trust Accounts during much of 2017 or for any part of 2018, he believed that 
the accounts were being properly maintained and protected by the former principals 
of Strata Law and the funds in the accounts were not at risk.  (Tr. 28:19-29:6)   
 
In reaching its conclusion that Respondent’s submission of the Certificates of 
Compliance amounted to negligent as opposed to knowing conduct, the Panel 
considered precedents in which comparable violations of Rule 8.4 with respect to 
the submission of Certificates of Compliance to the Delaware Supreme Court have 
been found to constitute negligent action by the sanctioned attorney.  See In re 
Dillon, 2017 WL 6506620, at *1, *7 (Del. Dec. 14, 2017) (disposition reported at 
176 A.3d 716 (Table)) (adopting Board recommendation that respondent acted 
negligently in connection with submission of Certificates of Compliance that 
included misrepresentations); In re Castro, 2017 WL 1376411, at *1, *6 (Del. Apr. 
12, 2017) (disposition reported at 160 A.3d 1134 (Table)) (same); In re Gray, 2016 
 
Page 20 of 28 
 
WL 7188110, at * 5, *7 (Del. Dec. 9, 2016) (disposition reported at (52 A.3d 581 
(Table)) (noting that ODC and respondent agreed that appropriate mental state was 
negligence in case involving misstatements in Certificate of Compliance); In re 
Woods, 143 A.3d 1223, 1232 (Del. 2016) (panel finding that the ODC failed to 
establish a state of mind more culpable than negligence in connection with 
submission of Certificates of Compliance that included misrepresentations).   
 
3. 
Actual or Potential Injury 
 
 In this case, there was an “injury” in connection with the Strata Law Wells 
Fargo Trust Accounts, in that fraudsters made off with over $150,000 that remained 
in these accounts as of 2018.  Respondent’s conduct did not cause this fraud.  
However, Respondent’s lack of diligence in causing the Strata Law Wells Fargo 
Trust Accounts to be expeditiously wound down after Strata Law’s closure in 2016 
(along with a similar lack of diligence by Strata Law’s principals) left funds in the 
accounts exposed.  While the fraud amounts to an injury, the Panel notes that there 
was no evidence of a substantial injury to any client of Strata Law, and that any 
injury to the payees on outstanding checks is difficult to ascertain.  The testimony at 
the Hearing established that such payees were owed relatively modest amounts of 
money, and for a variety of reasons did not cash checks that were issued to them 
from the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts years prior to the firm’s closure.  
(Tr. 22:12-23:10)  Further, there is no evidence that any party complained about not 
 
Page 21 of 28 
 
having received any payment that should have been made from the Strata Law Wells 
Fargo Trust Accounts.  (Tr. 37:22-38:10 (Respondent testifying that he received no 
calls or inquiries concerning outstanding checks in the accounts))  It was likely that 
substantial funds in the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts may have been 
escheated to the State due to inability to locate payees after reasonable effort.  Those 
payees that can be located with reasonable effort are now being paid by Respondent 
out of personal funds.   
 
4.  
Presumptive Sanction 
 
In the Panel’s view, analysis of the ethical duties violated by Respondent, 
Respondent’s state of mind and the potential for injury caused by Respondent’s 
misconduct raise a presumptive sanction of public reprimand.  The ethical duties 
violated direct the Panel to the following factors contained in the ABA Standards: 
4.1 (for violations of Rule 1.15(a) and (d)), and 6.1 (for violations of Rule 8.4(c) and 
(d)).  Where, as in this matter, the conduct involves negligent acts with injury or 
potential injury, these provisions point generally to a 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. 
 
Page 22 of 28 
 
 
5. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
(a) 
Aggravating Factors 
 
ABA Standard 9.22 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of aggravating 
factors: 
(a) prior disciplinary offenses; 
(b) dishonest or selfish motive; 
(c) a pattern of misconduct; 
(d) multiple offenses; 
(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally 
failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; 
(f) 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 victim; 
(i) substantial experience in the practice of law; 
(j) indifference to making restitution; 
(k) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled 
substances. 
ABA Standard 9.22. 
 
Page 23 of 28 
 
 
The ODC and Respondent have stipulated that the following aggravating 
factors are applicable in this case: 
 
(1)  
Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law, having 
practiced continuously since his admission to the Delaware Bar in 1986. ABA 
Standard 9.22(i).5 
 
(2)  
Respondent has engaged a pattern of violating the Delaware Lawyers’ 
Rules of Professional Conduct over an extended period of time, involving the Strata 
Law books and records and Respondent’s Certificates of Compliance obligations.  
ABA Standard 9.22(c).   
 
(3)  
Respondent has prior discipline for the same or similar conduct, which 
resulted in the issuance of a private admonition.  ABA Standard 9.22(a). 
 
The Panel finds, based on the evidence summarized above, that the foregoing 
aggravating factors are applicable to consideration of the sanction in this proceeding.   
 
 
(b) 
Mitigating Factors 
 
ABA Standard 9.32 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors to 
be considered in mitigation: 
(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record; 
                                               
 
5  The Stipulation erroneously states Respondent’s date of admission in Section II as 
1981.  (Stipulation § II, Aggravating Factors ¶ 1)  However, Respondent was 
admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1986.  (Stipulation ¶ I (1); Tr. 10:3-5) 
 
Page 24 of 28 
 
(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; 
(c) personal or emotional problems; 
(d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify 
consequences of misconduct; 
(e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude 
toward proceedings; 
(f) inexperience in the practice of law; 
(g) character or reputation; 
(h) physical disability; 
(i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or 
drug abuse when: (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected 
by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (2) the chemical dependency 
or mental disability caused the misconduct;  (3) 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 
unlikely; 
(j) delay in disciplinary proceedings; 
(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; 
(l) remorse; 
 
Page 25 of 28 
 
(m) remoteness of prior offenses. 
ABA Standard 9.32.   
 
The ODC and Respondent have stipulated that the following mitigating 
factors are applicable in this case: 
 
(1) 
Respondent did not have a dishonest of selfish motive.  ABA Standard 
9.32(b). 
 
(2) 
Respondent had personal or emotional problems involving the loss of 
employment by his former firm, and the lack of cooperation from his former firm in 
managing the accounts.  ABA Standard 9.32(c).   
 
(3) 
Respondent made a timely and good faith effort to make restitution and 
to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, including by using his own time and 
funds to make disbursements to payees on behalf of his former firm where such 
payees can be located.  ABA Standard 9.32(d). 
 
(4)  
Respondent made a full and free disclosure to the ODC and was 
cooperative toward the proceedings.  ABA Standard 9.32(e). 
 
(5) 
Respondent has good character and reputation in the Delaware Bar.  
ABA Standard 9.32(g). 
 
(6)  
Respondent has suffered other penalties and sanctions, in particular 
through use of his own time and funds to disburse escrow funds without cooperation 
or contribution from his former firm.  ABA Standard 9.32(k). 
 
Page 26 of 28 
 
 
(7)  
Respondent has demonstrated genuine remorse for his misconduct.  
ABA Standard 9.32(l). 
 
(8)  
Respondent’s prior disciplinary offense is remote in time, having 
occurred in 2005 and 2006.  ABA Standard 9.32(m).   
 
The Panel finds, based on the evidence summarized above, that the foregoing 
mitigating factors are applicable to consideration of the sanction in this proceeding.   
 
6.  
Precedent 
 
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.” In re Doughty, 832 A.2d at 735-736 (citations omitted). 
 
The sanction of a public reprimand and the related condition as proposed by 
the ODC and Respondent is consistent with precedent in other cases involving 
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 1.15 and Rule 8.4.  See In re Benson, 774 A.2d 
258, 262-263 (Del. 2001) (issuing public reprimand with probation and conditions 
for record-keeping violations and submission of inaccurate Certificates of 
Compliance); In re Dillon, 2017 WL 6506620, at *1 (approving public reprimand 
and two-year probation with conditions as proposed by panel); In re Castro, 2017 
WL 1376411, at *1 (same); In re Gray, 2016 WL 7188110, at * 1 (approving public 
 
Page 27 of 28 
 
reprimand and two-year probation); In re Woods, 143 A.3d at 1226 (approving 
recommendation of public reprimand for violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.4).   
VII. CONCLUSION 
 
Based upon the facts and related issues stipulated to by the ODC and 
Respondent, the evidence presented at the Hearing, and the considerations 
summarized above, the Panel recommends as the action of the Board that 
Respondent be sanctioned as follows:  
1. 
Public Reprimand.  That Respondent be publicly reprimanded for his 
violation of Rule 1.15(a), Rule 1.15(d), Rule 8.4(c) and Rule 8.4(d) of 
the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. 
2. 
Condition No. 1.  That, if Respondent is going to be Managing Partner 
in charge of books and records of a firm. Respondent shall notify the 
ODC immediately, and thereafter shall submit to the ODC, with his 
Certificate of Compliance on the first day of March after becoming 
Managing Partner, an affidavit by a licensed certified public accountant 
certifying that all of the firm’s law practice books, records and bank 
accounts have been maintained during the preceding year in full 
compliance with Rule 1.15, and that the firm’s payroll tax obligations 
for the preceding year have been satisfied in compliance with 
applicable law.  Respondent shall provide the above-referenced 
affidavit for the immediate two years after becoming Managing Partner. 
3. 
Condition No. 2.  That Respondent be required to report periodically to 
the ODC (with the frequency and content of reports to be determined 
by the ODC) on his efforts to locate and pay payees of outstanding 
checks issued on the Strata Law Wells Fargo Trust Accounts, and to 
provide such information as the ODC may request, until the ODC 
determines that all reasonable efforts resolve any open issues related to 
the accounts have been exhausted. 
 
Page 28 of 28 
 
4. 
Costs.  That Respondent be directed to pay the cost of this proceeding.  
Pursuant to Rule 27 of Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Respondent 
shall pay the ODC’s costs promptly upon the presentation of a 
statement of costs by the ODC.  Respondent shall also pay the costs of 
the audit performed by the auditor for LFCP, promptly upon 
presentation of a statement of such costs.   
Respectfully submitted, 
 
/s/ Joseph C. Schoell 
 
 
Joseph C. Schoell, Chair 
Date: January 8, 2021 
 
/s/ Carolyn M. McNeice  
 
Carolyn M. McNeice 
Date: January 8, 2021 
 
/s/ Theresa Ballard 
 
 
 
Theresa Ballard 
Date: January 8, 2021 
 
 
ACTIVE.125500546.02