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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 123400

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In the Mater of a Member of the Bar of §
the Supreme Court of Delaware 5 No. 127,2009
5
5
§

RAYMOND J. OTLOWSKI,
Respondent,

‘Submitted: April 2, 2009
Decided June 23, 2009

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER

‘This 23rd day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that the Board on Professional
Responsibility has filed a Report on this matter pursuant to Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Neither the Respondent nor the Orfice of
Disciplinary Counsel has filed objections to the Board's Report. The Court has reviewed the
matter pursuant to Rule 9(e) of the Rules of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Dit

 

Procedure and concludes the Board's Report should be approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT I$ ORDERED that the Report filed by the Board on
Professional Responsibility on March 11, 2009, (copy attached) is hereby APPROVED,

The Court hereby imposes « public reprimand. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is
‘directed to file within ten days ofthe date ofthis Order the costs ofthe disciplinary proceedings.
‘Thereafter, the Respondent is directed to have all costs paid within thirty days,

‘The matter is hereby CLOSED.

BY THE CouRr:

ww
JUSTICE

 
    

   

= wactnyuce tase C880)
aot revo Ese... See
a Bate = ES
Reams =e. St
=, 2 Se
oa == -S.
cnn tenn =
Snoamee” EERE =
aacom gnmaue ane
qe Gone = ERE ae
a...
March 11,2008

Mr. Stephen D. Taylor
‘Court Administrator

820N. French Steet, Ith Floor
‘Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Board on Professional Responsibility ofthe Supreme Court
‘of Delaware ~ In the Matter of a Member of the Bur of the
‘Supreme Court of Delaware ~ Raymond J. Otlowski,
Respondent, Board Case No. 2008-0119-8.
Dear Steve:

Enclosed isthe original signed Board Report and Recommendation of Sanction
dated March 9, 2009. Copies are being provided to Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esquire ofthe
Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Charles Stains, Esquire, counsel for Respondent, Karen L.
Valibor, Esquire, Chair ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility, and the other two panel

  
 

ember
Sincerely,
yp 4
A
Richa A. Levine
RALal
Encore

ce: Patricia Barley Schwartz, Esquire (wlenclosure)
CChasle Slanina, Esquire (Wwenclosure)
Karen L. Valinur, Esquire (wienciosure)
Kathleen Furey McDonough, Esquire (wlenclosure)
Dr. Adele Ashley-Axon (wienclosure)
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
‘OF THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

 

IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER ) CONFIDENTIAL
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT)
OF DELAWARE, ) BOARD CASE NO. 2008-9119-8
RAYMOND J. OTLOWSKI, d -
RESPONDENT ) .

JOARD NN OF. -

 

1 Procedura Background
Pending before a pael ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility (he “Board)

 

is a Petition for Discipline filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (the “ODC") on January 7,
2009 in Case No.2008-0119-B (the “Petition”) against Raymond J. Ouowski, Esquire
(Respondeat”), a member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Cour of the State of Delaware

Respondent, through his counsel, Charies Stanina, Esquire, filed « Response to
the Petition on January 27, 2009 (ihe “Response") in which Respondent admitted each and every
cone ofthe factual allegations and legal conclusions related to the violation alleged inthe Petition,
although the Answer alleged additional fcts by way of “further answer” relating to certain ofthe
allegations ofthe Petition,

“The Board convened a hearing (the “Hearing”) by the panel on February 11,
2009.' Action by the panel constitutes action bythe Board. (Rule 2(c), Dise. Proc. Rules)

‘Ate hearing the panel received into evidence as ODC Exhibit 1 the aut report
‘of Respondents law practice books and records daed November 7, 2007 conducted by MeBride
Sopa & Company, P.A. on behalf ofthe Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ofthe Bar of
Delaware (the “LECP"). The panel also heard testimony fom Respondent and testimony on

 

 

"The ens of th Foray 11,2009 bara cad eri ag "Te at
Respondents behalf fom Charles F. Set, aceified public accountant. The Board aso
recvved a proffer of testimony on Respondent's behalf fom Philip M.Finestauss, squire and
Leo John Ramunco, Esquire both member ofthe Delaware Bu
actual Findings

Because Respondent's Response had admited the fc and violations alleged ia

 

the Petition, counst for the ODC, Respondent, andthe pane treated the hearing as relating to
sanctions (Tr. a -6), although the panel did receive testimony from Respondent end Mr. Seitz
‘elating wo factual circumstances surounding the violations. Based on the fctual allegations of
the Petition admited by the Respondent and the credible unconverted testimony received at
the hearing from Respondent and Mr. Seitz, the Board makes the factual findings which follow.

|. The Respondent is member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Cour of
Delaware. He was admited tothe Bar in 1974, At ll imes relevant to the Petition, the
Respondent was engaged in the private practice of law as 2 solo practitioner in Newark,
Delaware where he has practiced as a solo practitioner since 1980. (Petition and Respoose § 1:
Treat ld)

2. A-random compliance audit of Respondest’s financial books and records
was conducted at Respondents law offices in Jane of 2007 by the auditor forthe LECP.
(eftion and Response $3; T. at 6)

3. On November 7, 2007, Mr. Francs J Jones, Chair ofthe LFCP, provided
the ODC with a report (the “Audit Report) coucerning the Jane, 2007 compliance audit. A copy
‘of the Audit Report was admitted without objection atthe hearing as ODC Exhibit 1, Petition
snd Response 13: Tr. 4)
4. The Avdit Report revealed the Respondent failed to properly maintain his
law practice books and records as follows:

The reconciled escrow bank balance didnot agree withthe subsidiary
listing of client balances. As of May 31,2007, the difference was $3,296.68;

- There were several negative client balances listed om the client subsidiary
ledger. As of May 31, 2007, there were three negative account balances totaling $382.00; and

- There were a large number of outstanding checks on the attomey escrow
account reconciliation that were over six months old. The amount of the outsanding checks as
‘of May 31, 2007, was $194,695.18. (Petition and Response f 4)

5. By leer dated December 4, 2007, Respondent, trough counsel, vised
‘the ODC that he was now involved in all aspects of his firm's books and records where inthe
past he ad relied on hi taf, whieh inched his own daughter, forthe required recordkeeping
functions, (Petition and Response $5)

6. By letter dated February 1, 2008, Respondent, through counsel, reported
he had made substantil progress toward resolving the deficiencies noted inthe Audit Report
(Petition and Response $6)

7. By leer dated Apeil 22,2008, the Respondent, through counsel, reported
there were only twenty-five oustanding checks with a balance of $15,058.16, and those were
actively being researched. (Petition and Response 7)

8. By leer dated May 19, 2008, the Respondent, through counsel, repored
that Charles Seitz, CPA, was schedaled to perform a review of the Respondent's books and
records on May 24, 2008, to confirm the Respondent's progres in clearing the outstanding,
checks as well as ongoing successful monthly conciliation ofthe frm's accounts. (Petition and
Response 18)

9. Bylencr dated June 19, 2008, the Respondent, rough counsel, eprted
the Respondent hd discovered his frm had been the viet of tera thet of approximately
$162,000 from the Respondent's escrow acount. The Respondent concluded based on
information discovered by Me. Seitz he thefts had been perpetrated by the Respondent's
<auyher who was employed bythe firm. The Respondent had assigned his daughter the task of
resolving the $194,695.18 jn oustanding checks in the atomey escrow account (Petition and
Response $9; Tr. at 18) Proc tothe discovery Respondent had wasted bis daughter. (Tr. at22)

10, Following the discovery that his daughter bad embezzied funds from his
czerow account Respondent went o his bank and fled affidavits of forgery. (Tr at 18)
Respondent also consulted with Me Seitz and Me Slanins, closed the account, opened 8 new
escrow account, notified the ODC ofthe theft and notified the police, Tt 18)

11, Respondent subsequently eased his financial books ad records to be
reconstructed to detail al hel. (Te at 36) Respondent subsequently bomowed $337,000.00 by
‘mortgaging his house and at the suggestion of Mr. Set, deposited $246,000.00 into his escrow
sccoust to cover te funds apparently stolen by hs daughter. (Tr. a 24,25)

12, Respondent has subsequently caused checks tobe issued tall vicims of
the thf fom his escrow acount (Tt at 25,38 andthe accounts are now in compliance (Te. at
8)

13, On October 8, 2008, the LFCP auditor performed another anit. As of tat
dete, the amount of money that had been stolen by Respondent's daughter from the escrow
coun was $213,069.41. (Petition and Response 1)
14, Prior to the June, 2007 audit report, Respondent had brought his financial
books and records to Charles Seitz, a cotfed public accountant for review (Tr. a 5,34) but Me.

itz had advised Respondent that Mr, Seitz would be unable to review them at that time, (Te at

 

19)
UL Standard of Proof

Allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the ODC's Petition must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. (Rule 15, Dise. Proc, Rules)
IV. Violations ofthe Rules

‘The Petition alleges and the Response admits six counts alleging violations of six
separate rules ofthe Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Profesional Conduct as follows.

COUNT ONE: _ RESPONDENT FAILED TO IDENTIFY AND SAFEGUARD
CLIENT FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(a)

Role I.15(a) requires that lawyer holding the property of elents or third persons
shall identify and appropriately safeguard such property, and shall maintain complete records of
such property fora period of five years ster the completion of the events that they record. By
failing to safeguard client funds, which resulted inthe theft of approximately $213,069.41 from
the Respondent's escrow account, the Respondent violated Rule I.15(a). (Petition and Response
Wi4and 15)

COUNTTWO: _ RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROMPTLY DELIVER TO
CLIENTS FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(b)

Role 1.15(0) requires that a lawyer shall promply deliver to a cent any funds
‘hat the cleat is entitled to receive. By fling to promptly deliver funds to clients who they
‘were etitled o receive, the Respondent violated Rule 1.15(b). (Petition and Response 26 and
”»
COUNT THREE: | RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND.
RECORDS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(4)

ale 1.154) vets forth detailed and specific requirements fr the maintenance of
stenes'books and records and handling of practice elated funds, The Respondent fied to
woperymsintin hs books and records violation of Rule 115() in at (the econied
‘crowed bark balance id not ace with he subsary ising flint balances, 2) negative
‘int blancs were lise onthe lent ssid ledger and (3) athe time ofthe audi checks
‘more than sic months od and totaling $19,695.18 hd been oustanding from te Respondents
storey excrow account. (Paton and Response 18 and 19)

COUNT FOUR: RESPONDENT FAILED TO SUPERVISE NONLAWYER
ASSISTANTS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 53

Rule 5.3 states that in employing 9on-lawyer assistants “a lawyer having direct
supervisory authority over a non-lawyer shall make reasonable eflorts to ensue thatthe person's
conduct is compatible with the profesional obligations ofthe lawyer .. and a lawyer shall be
responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation ofthe Rules of Professional
Conduct if engaged in by the lawyer ifthe lawyer. hs dzect supervisory authority over the
person, and knows ofthe conduct at time when ils consequences canbe avoided or mitigated
but fils to take reasonable remedial action.” By failing to have reasonable safeguards in place
‘which would assure an socuste accounting of his financial books and records in compliance
with the Rules und by filing to supervise his employee(s) generally with respect to compliance
with the Rules and specifically regarding safeguarding of escrow funds the Respondent violated
Rule 53. (Petition and Response 9 20 and 21)
COUNT FIVE: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INVOLVING
MISREPRFSENTATION IN VIOLATION OF RULE: 84(c)

Rule 8.4) provides that i

 

yer to “engage in

  

professional misconduct fora
conduct involving dishonesty, fad, deceit or misrepresentation.” By filing withthe Supreme
Court an Anoual Registration Statement in 2007 which inaccurately reported the Respondent had

spre-crtfcation review, the Respondent violated Rule 8.4). (Petition and Response $22

snd23)

COUNT SIX: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE
saa)

Rule &.4(4) provides that itis professional misconduct fora lnwryerto “engage ia
‘conduct that is prejudicial oth administration of justice.” The Delaware Supreme Court relies
upon the representations made by atorneys in the Certifies of Compliance filed with blr
Annual Registration Statements each yea ia the administration of justice governing the practice
flaw in Delaware. By filing wit the Sopeme Cour an Annual Registration Statement in 2007
which inaceurately reported the Respondent ha a pre-etfeation review, he Respondent
violated Rue 8.46) (Petition and Response $4.24 ant 25)
V. Recommended Sanction

“The ODC requested that Respondent receive public reprimand a the only
‘appropriate sanction in this matter. (Tr. at 41) Respondent, by his counsel, concurred with the
‘0DC recommendation. (Tra $4) For the reasons which follow, the pane accept the
recommendation ofthe ODC and recommends that Respondent be subject a public reprimand,
Vi, Ratonale for Recommended Sanction

In making its ecommendtion, he panel has tied the four-part framework set
forth inthe ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp 192) "ABA

 
‘Standards”) as required in In re Steiner, 817 A.24 793, 796 (Del. 2003). A preliminary
<etermination of the appropriate sanction is made by assessing the first three prongs ofthe test:
(10 the ethical duty violated; 2) the lawyer's state of mind; and (3) the actual or potenti injury
caused by the lawyer's misconduct. Id, (4) Once the preliminary determination is made, the
fourth prong addresses whether an increase or decrease inthe preliminarily determined sanction
fs justified because ofthe presence of mitigating or aggravating factors. dd.

‘The pane! has aso been mindful tha the objectives of the lawyer disciplinary
system in Delawace ae to protect the publi, to protect the administration of justice, to preserve
confidence in the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.” The
‘focus ofthe lawyer disciplinary system in Delaware is not on the lawyer but, rather, on the
anges othe public thats ascertainable fom the lawyer's record of professional misconduct.”

We turn toa discussion ofthe rationale forthe panel's recommendstion.

1, The Ethical Duties Violated As previously rected, ODC alleged,
Respondent admitted and the pane! determined that the Respondent committed misconduct in
iolation of Professional Rules of Conduct 1.15(a (failure to safeguard cient funds), 1.1506)
(failure to promptly deliver funds to cients ox third partes), 1.15(4) (failure wo properly sainssin
fioancial books and record), 5.3 (failure to supervise non-lawyer), 84(¢) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresetaton), and $.4(4) (engaging in conduct thats
prejicial to the administration of justice governing the practice of law in Delaware). Under the
[ABA Standards this misconduct constituted violations of duties owed by Respondent o clients
(Rules 1.15 and 8 (¢)), and violation of duties owed by Respondent tothe legal system (Rules
‘5.3 and 84(@)), See ABA Standards 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0

 

Tigre: Fran R Solomon, No-361 (De. 2005, quong Ine Bally, 121 A248 M6 (De 2008
2 re Bl 167 28 197,201 (De. 2001.
2. SateefMind. The ODC contends that Respondent's lure o maintain
sis Sania books and record appropriately was knowing bt tht his conduct with respect to
the ote alogot violations was negligent. (Tr. st 42-44) Respondent contends tht his conduct
vi espe wo all mater alegedin the Petition was egiget, The panel hts conclued that
Respondent acted negligently wth respect oll mates leged inthe Petition. The pal
conclu ht there sno clear and convincing evidence tht Respndest had actual Knowledge
or conscious awareness ofthe recordkeeping deficincienconstiting violations of Rule 1.15)
rio the June, 2007 random ait. See definition of knowledge in ABA Stndars and Ine
Dough, 832.2 724, (Del. Supe 2008). Indeed, even proto the at, Respondent a
sought o hav his nancial records reviewed by Me Seitz (Tr. 15) tough that eview id not
occur (Tr, at 35-36).

“The ODC doesnot contend he any of Respondent's the violations sre
‘vowing andthe panel gree. Rate, it ppears that Respondet was the itm of thelby
ixhonest employee. While an atomey isresponsible for supervising his employees to make
sare sch ishonest ats donot ocr nr Bile, 821 A.24 851, 863-64 Del. Sup 2003, there
‘eo evidence tat Respondent was ware of ny facts hat woud ave put him on notice of is
employee's dishonesty. Inf because the dsbonest employee wa the Respondent
auger who had give bm no prio restns tobe suspicious of her handing of finan ais
(817) Respondent hades reson to doubt her hoes thn the honesty of tn ordisary
employee and it was he dshonesty that resulted in he violations of Rules 1.15() and 1.150).
Respond’ ilu to supervise is daughter involution of Rule 5.3 was negligent. The pal
also sceps Respondents testimony that hi fling with the Delaware Supreme Cour of
Anca Registation Statement n 2007 which inaccurately reported tht Respondent ad pe-
cenifiestion review in violation of Rules 8.4(¢) and 8.4(4) was negligent and resulted from a
misunderstanding by Respondent ofthe rules relating to pre-cerbfcations and his
misunderstanding ofthe role that Mr. Seitz had played with respect to review of his records at
the time of he cenitication. (Tr. at 27-28)

3. Injury Caused by Respondent's Miscondust, The record demonstrates tht
Respondent's misconduct led to the theft of substantial funds from Respondents clint excrow
‘account and that these thefts would have resulted in substantial oss to clients and third partes if
Respondent had not made restitution.

4. Rationale for Determination of Sanction

Inthe pane!’s view, analysis ofthe ethical duties violated by Respondent,
Respoedent’s state of rind and the injury caused by Respondent's misconduct conform 9
(00C’s recommendation ofa sanction of public reprimand. The ethical duties violated direct the
pane! to the following factors contained in the ABA Standards: 4.1 (or violation of Rue 1.15),
446 and 5.1 (or violation of Rule 8.4()), 6.0 (for violation of Rute 8.4(4), and 7.0 (for violation
‘of Rule 53). These provisions generally eserve the sanction of disbarment for knowing or
intentional misconduct or criminal behavior which bas caused serious or potentially serious
injury to the client or a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal
proceeding, Where, asin this matter, the conduct involves negligent acts with less serious or no
injury, the eppropriate sanction is generally public reprimand (see ABA Standards 4.13,4.63,
5.13, 613 and 7.3). Of coure, these general principles must be applied agaist the facts of each
particular cas, including the preseace or absence of any mitigating or aggravating factors.
‘Those facts and factors are discussed below.

Dean 0
‘A. Ageravating and Migating Factors
ABA Standard 922 sets forth the following non-exhaustive ist of

aggravating factors:

(a) prior disciplinary offenses;

(©) dishonest o sefish motive;

(@) pattem of misconduct,

(6) multiple offenses;

(@) bad faith obstruction ofthe dscipnary proceeding by
Intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders ofthe
disciplinary agency:

(0 ‘submission of false evidence, fase statements, or other deceptive
practices daring the disciplinary process;

(@) Felis to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(b) vulnerability of victim;

{substantial experince in the practice of aw;

@) indifference to making restitution; and

{illegal conduct, ineluding that involving the se of controlled
substances.

(ABA Standard § 9.22)

“The only aggravating factor relevant to this matter is Respondent's

substantial experience in the practice of law, The panel concluded that this aggravating factor

lone docs not justify imposition ofa sanction more severe than reprimand, particularly in ight

cof the numerous mitigating factors present and discussed below.

B. Mitigatng Factors.

[ABA Standard 9.32 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors

to be considered in mitigation:
(@) absence of prior dscipnary record;
(©) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) personal or emotonal problems;
(@)__ timely good faith effort to make restitution orto reetify
consequences of misconduct;

©

o
®

full aad fee dislowure to disciplinary board or cooperative atzede
toward proceedings;

inexperience in the practice of law;

character o reputation;

n

 
(2) physical disability:
etal disability ce chemical dependsney including aleobolisr or
drug abuse when:
(1) thew is medical evidence thatthe Respondent i affected by
1 chemical dependency or mental disability,
@) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the

misconduct
the respondent's recovery ffom the chemical dependency or
mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningfl end
Sustained period of successful rebabilitation; and
(4) the ecovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence ofthat
misconduct is unlkely;
(delay in disciplinary proceedings:
(&) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
remorse;
(im) remoteness of prior offenses.

@

Respondent's counsel contended tothe panel that fetes (8). (6) () (2

(6), (@).(),(k) and () should be considered. The ODC did not contest this contention and the
panel concurs

C.— Conclusion, The panel finds thatthe mitigating factors presented in tis
matter more than offset the single aggravating factor, namely, Respondent's substarsial
‘eaperience in the practice of aw. Ie particular, the panel commends Respondent fr his timely
good faith efforts to make restitution and his cooperation withthe ODC following kis receipt of
the audit and subsequeot evens, (Tt at 18,24-26) The panel also recognizes the significant
financial burden assumed by Respondent (Tt t 24) and the deep pain suffered by Respondent as
result of berayal by his own child. Respondent has accepted responsibility for his misconduct
without reservation and the pane! finds his expression of remorse to be sincere (Tr. #t 26-27.
However the pane! finds that these mitigating factors ar insufficient t avoid the sanction of
public reprimand. The pane! believes that a private sanction would not serve the purpose of

providing notice othe legal community and the public that violations with respect to

2
maintenance of proper financial books and records will be dealt with severely by the Board and
by the Delaware Supreme Court, See Jn re Benson, 774 A.2d 258, 262-263 (Del. Sup. 2001).

D. —Pracedent. Finally, the panel believes that imposition ofthe sanction of
public reprimand in this mater is consistent with Delaware Supreme Court precedent in simi
matters, Both ODC end counsel for Respondent directed the panel's attention to four prior
decisions ofthe Delaware Supreme Court, namely, In re O°Brien, 888 A.2d 252 (Del. Supe
2005) approving the Report and Supplemental Report of the Board on Professional
Responsibility fled on October 26,2005 (a copy of whichis attached); In re Froelich, 838 A.24
117 Del. Supe. 203); ne Dough, sunre; and In re Benson, supra. Each ofthese eases
involved violations relating fo financial recordkeeping and reporting tothe Delaware Supreme
‘Court. In the most recent case, OBrien, supe, the Delaware Supreme Court approved the
Board's recommendation of public reprimand for violations relating to financial recordkeeping
and negligent supervision of an employee wio stole money from the atiomey's escrow account
“The panel considers it significant thatthe Board had rejected both an ODC recommendation fora
six-month sad one day suspension and Mr. O'Brien's request for imposition ofa private
admonition and instead imposed the public reprimand without imposition of any peciod of
probation

‘The pane! is aware that in each of the Froelich, Doughty and Benson cases the
Delaware Supreme Court imposed a sanction of public reprimand and a two-year probation for
recordkeeping violations uncovered as a result of random suits. At the hearing inthis matter,
‘the Chairman ofthe panel pointed out to ODC counsel that the Delaware Supreme Court had
‘imposed otha pobic reprimand end a two-year probation in prior cases and asked ODC counsel
‘why no probation wns reconimended in this case (Tr. at $5). ODC counsel responded as follows

B
pom 4es ect
 

fe donot feel that a probationary period would be
appropriate in this matter because we doa’t fel that itis
necessary. Ieally was a discret, isolated incident, and
that Me. Olowaki responded appropriately. Although the
fist time he responded, he was negligent inthe response by
having his daughter doit and not following it as carefully,
but he did respond in both circumstances. We don't feel
that there would be a problem ongoing in the future. We
don't feel there would be any need fora probationary
perio in this matter.” (Tr, at 55-56)

 

(OD counsel went on to distinguish In re Benson, suo asa case involving “ongoing problems
Jeading up 1 the actual imposition of the public reprimand which required follow-through on
regular basis for the two-year probationsry period.” (Tt, at $6) ODC counsel sought 10
distinguish the appropriateness of imposing probation against the respoadent in Froelich, supra
but not inthis ease as follows:

“tn Froelich, I hink Mr Poelich just had so many, so
any éifferent matters that were brought before the Board,
the six cate, the sx instances ofthe returned checks and his
bookkeeping and records that required some type of,
probationary period following te imposition ofthe
sanction. We don't fel that those facts are present inthis
‘ase, ad that’s why we're not recommending any type of
‘probationary period (Tr. at $7)

Finally, ODC couneel explained the distinction between the imposition ofa probationary period
in in Re Doughty, supa. and her recommendation thst a period of probation isnot appropriate in
the case at Ba as follows:

“Doughty, think the reason there was a pecbationary
period 00, ihe was ina uniqoe situation where he was a
Delaware office for an out-of-state law firm, andthe books
snd records in that mater were so in disarray, he wasn't
complying actually with the Delaware books and records
recordkeeping. It was done according to wherever the out
of-statebome office was. And think a period of probation
‘was applicable in that mater just because we needed 10
make sure that he flly understood his requirements as &
‘managing parter ofthe Delaware law fim how to

“
pem-moats once
‘maintain the books and records acconling to Delaware as
‘opposed to the out-of-state jurisdiction." (Tr. at $6.57)

‘As previously note, the pane! has adopted the OC's recommendation
tbat Respondent receive a public recimand witout imposition of probationary peiod. The
nel cept the distinctions between the Froelich, Doughty and Benson cases cited by ODC
‘counsel andthe panel des not believe its decision is inconsistent with the prior Delaware
Supreme Cour precedents, In particular, the panel recognizes that inthe most recent sil
ase, nr 0'Brin, spe, the Delaware Supreme Cour accepted the Board's recommendation
ofa public reprimand with no discussion or imposition of a petod of probation. The pal
‘etieves that its conclusion to accepe the ODC recommendation of public reprimand without a
‘od of probation snot inconsistent with the ober three Delaware Supreme Court precedents.
‘There i no discussion in any ofthe Froelich Dough or Benson cass of erations fr the
‘imposition ofthe probation in ation to he publi reprimand, In fact, it appear that in each of
wa the oat that a imposed the period of probation
Logether withthe poli eprimand and ths he Delaware Supreme Court ha carried forward

Froelich Doughty and Benson,

 

\maposition ofthat additional sanction (Le, probation) without separate discussion *
Finally, the panel is comforted in adopting the ODC's recommendation that
imposition ofa period of probation upon Respondent is not necessary in light of Respondent's
voluntary undertaking to terminate is independent office and to practice as of counsel with his
colleagues, Pilip M. Finestraus, Esquire (for criminal law matters) and Leo John Ramunno,
Esquire (for real estate matters) (Tr. st 29-30). By virtue ofthese relationships, Respondent will

“i bot ve Benson, i nd he Dog sgt, te Board bad imposed private sdontion ogee wt
‘wove prota peed indtbe Delaware Supeeme Cou subse public repinand fou pate amanscn
‘ed reaed the to: yerprobtion wih wo spurte cso relting tthe pcb, In ne Fricke
Delaware Supreme Court speed oer secminendaton fos pbb reprinand togher hate yex
oban peri gin with oo sept camino he panto fe probation

15
no lnger be “ronan the practice” andthe nancial rates relating tothe proctce wil be
tundled by Mess. Festus or Rarmungo (Tt. t 30) In Respondent's awn words “I would
sot wu scent” (Tr. 30)

‘Based on the foregoing considerations the panel recommends ws action ofthe
‘Board thatthe sanctions set forth in Section V ofthis Report be imposed upos Respondent,
including the imposition of costs of these disciplinary proceedings pursant to Rule 27, Dis

someon
wal yes aos

i
een Furey McDonough

Proc. Rules

 

peared

asad; March 9,2009

6
1 longer be “runing the practice” andthe financial mars eating to the practice wil be
‘handled by Mess, Finesse of Rainn (Tr. at 30). In Respondent's own words, “f would
not toch a cent” (eat 30)

‘Based onthe foregeingcoaideatons, the panel recommends sation ofthe
Board that the scion st forth a Section V ofthis Report be imposed upon Respondent,
inching the imposition of costs of these dsihinary proceadings pwn to Rae 27, Di
Proc. Rules

[BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLITY

Ridard A ovine
‘Katies Furey McDonough

ist, Cot
Iie stereo

 

Dated: March 9,2009

6

 
4 Rusu cares mg SEDO

 

 

+t

oan crecasanen aereLTY

cr yawurioat contr ms arnorseawins

Denmaarnor aumoence ; CONDITA
Braemar: 3
Suwa 5 eter og 3
xn ones, Ba
mas : a2
q
smastusrotosascnoss 3
A tanto : i

On Sete 205, Bd Psi Reon Bs}
(Se rp ang ak ie te ged is Delonas Lepr
lero dn Cont Rar) On eptember 2, 205, Bed Nd in
ney apn ell pen in, ig tA

© 1 tem te oe opty Come (0907 meme a Rept
mt mo ad oe hy. Regent ass a Fas Sonn
seve ings el a yeni ri wt ape
‘bao mov ie Cito Capt, Rep
sen a Besa 742428 ki ce pe pine et ep
(a hing a on hp pe mpd
reece eine aw eB et Reged py
pind The Don ae rs a pened mp «pct re
eran 00C gut we Pon

Rog ed Pen

‘ee on Dy 1, 308 hing Rv sd

Sener 1,20 enn ok te oa eee Rept yg ——— |

 

 
 

slag he in Hn Ange pd Sms Neb 201 My 2006s
a ian of Rab 3240) 1, 2008 a AS od Bp 3H, 208
(2.0, Are Sepemter 11,208 tng pt made ne i is,
ks ar EA eg Dap ap et Cot On oe
Patni a pec eye Rl 1.16) li wih pe Rapa’ eet
‘te sng in fein pid on Newent 201 oy 2804. 00
sere in pete at Pte db mended ctr he eee ah A
arn) Ar Rapti sh md at ODC nee my ode end
(Pea ek atm cane hg ed pie Repent (AD B
erat DC fed «is mt pre le 50) Dee Laer ae a
Dlr Psa COLAO) ting lw Cou Se Peon aC
ere). Repent cj gw prc ed te pads BD
rob Amat ar Sing, Rept te wi raed ye mene
Seen ne eee Peng Spi td ced hy 8 205 bingo
‘Se ef he pene Pein, Repent ee ue enh ad
wn hy 1,205 Ag wl re lo Reno
(Se pot ODE pnt by rng at eo we weal
‘Seve tad pst Gf al tc lH nny
‘eon reps nS, DC et te Regnier pa
‘Th Bod ope at sda ne Co sd bpm
apt fer i Peng Spin wd pet they 1, 005 eng
aio aps ine Pei, Une DLRD? KOK Be io a pd

 

re a

 
 

aan Repent ety pty ole cat, YA en
pent Ct Set Pen yt ee ed en hm, ed ae
var denn aw any apa rey, Acrogy, a comb f
nr, e Bor net COC eet nd Pen!

Tete Rammed Pe Harnad

ening coment of» le remind Bod ener ABA
Sunt fr ena Lepr Stn (ABA Sul ad eet ced de
(Suni, Spcay, te Bowdseveed hel ed (yk, he
‘rb gays he rte apt ete et ago
hen al Se rt fc pial py ne ye cat

he Bosna cle ae ed aed aes ed
‘eg pe, To Be eh tReet na
‘ef aero ae. Rept wa opt ne pron af epee me
(Se Me cet ew ct epede wso ie et S ptdoe
‘May 201 Neva 200 when i tir a en wo a
secon lets Ig se Set Sa CPA, a ak parting ily
memciaon of Repnden om we, yt ne he i 290204 Carat
f Comp, lone, Rade was on mony cain ao es
pec a 20 ba pee ay ane.

2 ems ae De oc a ae Ww ea fy yet
Repent conte cy ed poe et ay

 
‘Boe bas cond npg a nig tet The Bt

eae ne oo

1 Regd Dr aed «pts of sma nah it
se Be ng aban ge ce pet, Beno erin ©
tart in, ot hg nes Cra of Compe whe
ee et ABA Bd BAe
ete abc mf mpl fe (ABA ota 21;
aonb minal pice pc of tom, ig a
ined xe Bt 179 (ABA Se 2005

Regd a pr Scipryt(ABA Saar 932). Th Be,
ere ier oy He wht. Teri mater a
le nnd 107 br wing a ving Reps
revi ov fen. Sag 3,208 TTD Te pe read i mote
ern sd lors coe tet Som he cnt tL ie
recency

enn at my pan ke veg

 

‘he ond de eng mining it

1 Rept ed ene ade end wre oe
ena wee by hs ans smth pene
een ny nd agen pe pei a
‘Se LPP aa ee fom ABA Sas IIE

12 Repro bt oper wi te OOC ABA Samat 2005

 
 

enon cage nl el cot ac
lenge ide wnat sal cig sol conper
tes tol ard prin 202,00 rong He ABA Sod
se Bll 1 At,

1 00 como 4 acon at mea a dy pening
‘Re: Be ve even od smc not pret, Bay we ming
eo fem ch en th ing, ed nly han ey ec fe
tes DY A24ASES. Bae Mas erly lop ppg Me ea
aume an,U.t 38. fl’ opeing cu wa npn or ssn
ee pd in, 4 16. Mant, Die eager’ ne
xr to ey pel ah H.46-4. The Beret ee oe Piel 62

(Catan goa. 1995, stone tone bang ie face hd
24.6 177, Va rapes ape tf nein pinion of ln

oda G4 here sc pein.
Th Boe at snd ABA Sur 412 ad Ble, wlch proven

ent eon pie wn lege A Yew a ang
Seopa pry eet iy opt iy wo l* ran
cmp wed thrips at Sanne Bad he at
npg cto dad sh od a hk fac cat cy wate et
she ina,

‘Th wd je Repent mp pane pe pun, Sa
econ ct cami i ppd Ian Cot pn pl epinand
(ray ae ae pn Da nt cr a cae

 
 

id 5, nd ety le ad ey vu fl eS an hae
Cena of Conger, Regt ah rene Cur nd he ert ar en,
tg ea he ue pind mon cet ch et ee ee
eae Sey opie amas fw’ Deck a art Hom,
erent wt ety pri n't od mth WA et et
evn a te eo rt pet int ein a
ie Rept an, Repent ot pay td a we sk ek
ee sxe ven ong ape at ad hy oy ic,
seeing ele hn it ob a nt ng er pry ed

ttn te Bud evs at pu ect nt te ndin
‘moe ope ter eo he pry ren yoga
(ain fen, pig cnn i ep pf a ering ther
‘eo um ni mtd