Case Title: Matter of Tos

Citation: 610 A.2d 1370

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
610 A.2d 1370 (1992)
In the Matter of a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware, Edwin A. TOS.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: July 7, 1992.
Decided: July 14, 1992.
Edwin A. Tos, respondent, pro se.
Charles Slanina, Disciplinary Counsel for Bd. on Professional Responsibility, Wilmington.
*1371 Before HORSEY, WALSH, and HOLLAND, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
This is a Disciplinary Proceeding. A panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Board")[1] held a hearing involving charges of professional misconduct against the Respondent, Edwin A. Tos ("Tos"). Bd.Prof.Resp.R. 9(d). The Board has issued a final report to this Court ("Report").
The record reflects that Tos did not file an Answer to the Petition to Discipline. Nevertheless, Tos appeared, pro se, at the Board hearing. Tos advised the Board that he did not contest the charges and allegations before it. The Board found that Tos had failed to timely file a State of Delaware income tax return for 1988 and 1989. The Board also found that Tos had failed to timely file a Federal income tax return for 1989.
Tos has represented to this Court that he takes no exception to the Board's findings of fact. However, Tos does take exception to the Board's conclusion that his failure to file the aforementioned State and Federal income tax returns was "wilful." Therefore, the issues to be addressed by this Court are whether Tos' conduct was "wilful" and the appropriate form of discipline to be imposed.
The Court has determined that the record supports the Board's conclusion that Tos' failure to file his income tax returns was "wilful." Therefore, the Court has decided, in view of Tos' prior disciplinary history, that Tos should be suspended for a period of three years. Bd.Prof.Resp.R. 8(a)(2).
The Board's findings of fact with respect to the underlying charges of professional misconduct, as set forth in its Report, are in pertinent part, as follows:
The Board's conclusions of law with respect to the underlying charges of professional misconduct, as set forth in its Report, are in pertinent part, as follows:
This Court's scope of review with regard to the Board's factual findings is to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support those findings. In re Lewis, Del.Supr., 528 A.2d 1192, 1193 (1987); In re Kennedy, Del.Supr., 472 A.2d 1317, 1326 (1984); In re Reed, Del.Supr., 429 A.2d 987, 991 (1981). "Findings by the Board relating to disputed issues of fact and credibility will not be reversed by the Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence." In re Green, Del. Supr., 464 A.2d 881, 887 (1983). We review the Board's conclusions of law de novo. In re Berl, Del.Supr., 540 A.2d 410, 413 (1988). We are satisfied that the record before this Court supports the Board's findings of fact, the Board's determination that Tos' failure to file his income tax returns was wilful, and the conclusions of law made by the Board in this case. In re Sullivan, Del.Supr., 530 A.2d 1115, 1117 (1987); In re Lewis, 528 A.2d  at 1195; In re Sanders, 498 A.2d  at 150; In re Frabizzio, Del. Supr., 498 A.2d 1076, 1081 (1985). See also In re Ryan, Del.Supr., 498 A.2d 515, 518 (1985).
Proceedings for discipline are not criminal in character, but are "in the nature of an investigation by the [C]ourt into the conduct of its own officers." In re Morford, Del.Supr., 46 Del. 144, 80 A.2d 429, 432 (1951). Each case is fact sensitive. In determining an appropriate sanction, this Court must "protect the interests of the public and the [B]ar while giving due consideration to the interests of the individual involved." In re Litwin, N.J.Supr., 104 N.J. 362, 517 A.2d 378, 379 (1986); In re Kinnear, N.J.Supr., 105 N.J. 391, 522 A.2d 414, 415 (1987).
In mitigation of Tos' present professional misconduct, the Board found:
The Board found the following to be factors in aggravation of Tos' present professional misconduct:
The inherent and exclusive authority for disciplining attorneys rests with this Court. In re Green, 464 A.2d  at 885. Although protection of the client is a primary purpose of disciplinary action, there are other important purposes to be served by lawyer discipline. See In re Sullivan, 530 A.2d  at 1119. Disciplinary proceedings also serve to foster public confidence in the Bar, to preserve the integrity of the profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. Id.
As officers of the Court, members of the Bar are expected to respect and uphold the law. "[L]awyers who act illegally diminish the stature of the legal profession and reduce public confidence in the rule of law." Standing Comm. on Discipline of the United States Dist. Court v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1984). Accordingly, failure to maintain personal integrity, by wilfully failing to file State and Federal income tax returns in a timely manner, has resulted in the imposition of serious disciplinary sanctions by *1374 this Court. See In re Sandbach, Del.Supr., 546 A.2d 345 (1988) (wilful failure to file income tax returns for five years resulted in three year suspension, provided that respondent could petition for reinstatement in two years if he had completed 400 hours of community service); In re Sanders, Del. Supr., 498 A.2d 148 (1985) (wilful failure to file income tax returns for three years resulted in three year suspension).
We have carefully considered the record in this case. We have considered the Board's Report, in particular the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. We have also considered the prior disciplinary record of Tos, that resulted in his prior suspension from the practice of law and which is still in effect. In re Tos, Del.Supr., 576 A.2d 607 (1990). We have concluded that the interests of the public, the Bar, and Tos would all be served, as a result of Tos' wilful failure to timely file State and Federal income tax returns, if Tos is suspended prospectively for a period of three years.
Accordingly, IT IS ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Tos be disciplined as follows:
1. That Tos be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of law, as a member of the Delaware Bar, for a period of three years, commencing August 1, 1992 and ending July 31, 1995.
2. That during such period, Tos shall not (a) share in any legal fees arising from clients or cases referred by him, during the period of suspension, to any other attorney, or (b) share in any legal fees earned for services by others during such period of suspension.
3. That Tos shall comply with the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
4. That during such period of suspension, Tos shall make arrangements with Disciplinary Counsel for the Board on Professional Responsibility for the payments of the costs of the proceedings before the Board.
5. That this Opinion and Order be disseminated by Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with Rule 3 and Rule 14 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
[1]  The Board is an agency of this Court. Supr. Ct.R. 62; In re Kennedy, Del.Supr., 472 A.2d 1317, 1318-19 (1984).