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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 260-2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2017-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.

IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER §

OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME § No. 260, 2017
COURT OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE:

JOHN S. MALIK

‘Submitted: June 30, 2017
Decided: July 7, 2017

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER

‘This 7 day of July 2017, it appears to the Court that:

(1) _ This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. On June 26, 2017, the
Board on Professional Responsibility filed a report with this Court
recommending that the respondent, John S. Malik, Esquire, 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

 

‘order. Neither the Office of Disciplinary Counsel nor Malik 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 I$ ORDERED that the Board's June 26, 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:

Justice
Fiting 1D 60775482
Case Number 260,2017

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 

 

   
 
 
 

In the Matter of a G
Member of the Bar of the * CONFIDENTIAL
Supreme Court of Delaware: *
* Board Case No. 113101-B
JOHNS. MALIK, C
Respondent. C

L. Procedural Background

Pending before a panel of the Board on Professional Responsil

 

Petition for Discipline filed by the Office of Diseiplinary Counsel (“the ODC") on or about
February 1, 2017 in Board Case No. 113101-B ("the Petition”) against John S. Malik, Esquire
(Cthe Respondent”). a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court ofthe State of Delaware. The
Petition alleged violations of Rules 1.5(0, 1.15(a), 1.15(@), 5.3, 84(¢), and 8.4(d). Respondent,
through his counsel, Charles Slanina, Esquire, filed an Answer tothe Petition (“the Answer”),

‘The Board convened a hearing ("the Hearing”) by the panel on April 13, 2017.' The
‘members of the panel ofthe Board were Dennis Klima, Karen V. Sullivan, Esquire, and Seth L.
‘Thompson, Esquire, Chair (“the Panel”), Kathleen Vavala, Esquire represented the ODC.
Charles Slanina, Esquire represented the Respondent.

‘Atthe outset ofthe Hearing, the Respondent moved to file an Amended Answer, with the
amendments refleced by underline on pages 10 and 11. (Tr. at p. 5.) The ODC had no
objection. (Tr. at p. 5.) The motion was granted, and the Panel received copies ofthe Amended

‘Answer. The amendments resulted in the Respondent admitting all six counts of the Petition

"The trnsript ofthe Apri 13, 2017 hearing i ited herein ase. tp,
1
‘At the Hearing, the Panel received into evidence two joint exhibits binders. The
Respondent also submitted a letter dated April 10, 2017 from Dana L. Reynolds, Esquire. The
Panel also rece

 

I: a case law binder’, Summaries of Representative Delaware Precedents re:

 

Books and Records Deficiencies, Delinquent Lawyer Tax Obligations, and False Certificates of
Compliance; and the Respondent's counsel's highlighted copy of ABA Standard 9.32 on
‘mitigating factors. The Panel heard testimony from the Respondent, Alexander Funk, Esquire,
Allen Dale Bowers, Esquire, and William Deely, Esquire.
M. Factual Findings

‘Because the Respondent's Amended Answer had admitted the violations alleged in the
Petition, the ODC, the Respondent, and the Panel treated the hearing as relating primarily to
sanctions. (Tr. at pp. $-6.) Nevertheless, the Panel received testimony from the Respondent and
the exhibits relating to factual circumstances surrounding the violations. The firs joint exhibits

binder consisted of: 1) a Quick Report regarding Joshua Chattin dated October 5, 2016; 2) an

 

invoice regarding Joshua Chattin dated September 30, 2016; 3) a Fee Agreement for Mark Vill
ated August 15, 2015; 4) a Quick Report regarding Mark Villei dated October 5, 2016; 5) an.
invoice regarding Mark Ville dated August 6, 2015; 6) a Fee Agreement for John Vanderhoogt
ated April 22, 2015; 7) a Quick Report regarding John Vanderhoogt dated October 5, 2016; 8)
‘an invoice regarding John Vanderhoogi dated April 16, 2015; 9) an Independent Accountant's
Report from Master Sidlow Associates dated July 27, 2016; and 10) the Respondent's 2016

Delaware Supreme Court Certificate of Compliance.

 

2 The case law binds included the following: In re Benson, 714 A 24258 (Del. 2001); ne Caro, Del, No.5,
2017 Seine, C4. (Ag. 12,2017) (Orde ne Doupley, 832 Ad 724 (Del 2003); Ire Finesray 33 sd 978
(Del 2011; tne Froelich, $38 A24 1117 Del 200); ine Gray, 152 A34 $8 (Dsl. 2016 nreNlecpherson-
-ebnson, 782 4.28265 (De. 201) mre Marin, 35 A34 419 (De. 2011) Ine lows, 996 A24 1722009 WL,
"786085 (Del. 2009; and dn re Sil, 985 A24 391, 2009 WL 4573243 (Del. 2009).

2
The second join exhibits binder consisted of the Respondent's five prior private
admonitions: ODC File No, 105379-B, dated August 7, 2013; Board Case No. 32,2005; Board
Case No, 67, 1994 Board Case No, 53,1993: and Board Case No. 17,1990,

Based onthe factual allegations of the Petition admited by the Respondent and the
credible, unconroverted testimony received atthe hearing from the Respondent, and the
submited exhibits, the Board makes te fatal ndings which allow

|. The Respondent is member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware. He was
Amite tothe Bar in 1984. (Petition and Amended Answer 1; Te at p. 13) AC ll imes
felevant to the Petton, the Respondent was engaged in the private practice of law in
Witmington, Delaware, (Tr. app. 13-14.) The Respondent hasbeen aslo practioner foe 315

years, (Tr. at p. 14.) From 1984 through the day ofthe firm's last audit, the Respondent was in

 

charge of the firm's books and records. (Petition and Amended Answer |.)

2. A compliance audit of the Respondents financial books and records was conducted of the
Respondent's law offices for the six months ending April 30, 2016 (the “2016 Master Sidlow
‘Audit Report”) by the auditor forthe Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (*LFCP"). (Petition
2)

3. The 2016 Master Sidlow Audit Report reflected thatthe Respondent failed to pay properly
his tax obligations to the City of Wilmington. Respondentfsled to file a tax retum or pay his
2013 and 2014 City of Wilmington net profits tax until March 15,2016. (Petition and Amended
Answer $24.)

4. The 2016 Master Sidlow Audit Report also included the following findings relating to the

Respondent's books and records and Fidueiary Account #24074641
(4) The reconciled end-of-the-month cash balances differed from the total of all client funds
held in all six of the months reviewed, with differences ranging from -$3,031.79 to
$3,963.31;

(8) In one transaction, attorney's fees were withdrawn from the trust account prior to the
  Delaware Lawyers" Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 15().
5

 
Answer $21.) The Respondent also violated Rule 1.5(f) by failing to provide Mssrs. Chatin,
Villei, and Vanderhoogt with statements ofthe fees earned atthe time the funds were withdrawn,
from the trust account. (Petition and Amended Answer 9 21-22.)

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

Role 1.15(0 requires that a lawyer holding the property of clients or third persons shall
identity and appropriately safeguard such property. By fling to safeguard cient funds, which
resulted in negative client balances in the Fiduciary Account, the Respondent violated Rule
1.15(a). Petition and Amended Answer 427,

COUNT THREE: RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS IN
VIOLATION OF RULE 1.15(@)

Rule 1.15(6) sets forth detailed and specie requirements forthe maintenance of
‘tomeys" books and records and handling of practicelated funds, The Respondent filed to
ropery maintain his books and records in violation of Rue 1.15) by (1) ling to reconcile
the endofthe-month cash balances withthe Lota of client funds foreach ofthe sic months
reviewed; (2) withdrawing fes fom the trust account prior to the deposit of clint funds,
resulting in a negative balance; (3) having 21 cient balances that were over sx month od for
hich the atone will not be providing dion service inthe tt account and (8) fling to
‘maintain retainer agreements, compensation agreements, o both, and filing to maintain copies
of accountings o clients or third persons showing the disbursement of funds to them or on their
beball Petition and Amended Answer 9125, 29)

COUNT FOUR: RESPONDENT FAILED TO SUPERVISE NONLAWYER ASSISTANTS IN
VIOLATION OF RULE 5.3

Rule 5.3 provides that, in employing nonlawyer assistants, “a lawyer having direct

‘supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the

6
person’s conduct is compatible withthe professional obligations of the lawyer... and... a lawyer
shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct

 

engaged in by a lawyer if... the lawyer... has direct supervisory

 

authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at atime when its consequences can be
avoided or mitigated but fels to take reasonable emedial action” The Respondent violated
Rule 53 by filing 1 have reasonable safeguards in place which would ensure an acurte
accounting of hs law practice books and records in compliance withthe Rules, by ling to

supervise his employee's conduct

 

reconciling the books and records and paying taxes, by
knowing that taxes were not being timely filed and paid, or any combination thereof. (Petition
and Amended Answer 31.)

(COUNT FIVE: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INVOLVING
(MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8.4(c)

Rule 8.4(c) provides that

 

is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct,
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” By filing with the Delaware Supreme
Court in 2016 a Cerificate of Compliance which included misrepresentations relating to the

Respondent's maintenance of his law practice books and records, the Respondent violated Rule

 

8.4(¢) Petition and Amended Answer 135.)

COUNT SIX: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE,
‘ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8.4(d)

Rule 8.4(@) provides that

 

is professional misconduct fora lawyer to “engage in conduct

‘tha is predic

 

to the administration of justice.” The Delaware Supreme Court relies upon the
representations made by attomeys in the Cerificate of Compliance filed each year in the
‘administration of justice governing the practice of law in Delaware, By filing his 2016

Ceniticates of Compliance, which included misrepresentations relating to the Respondent's
maintenance of his law practice books and records and the payment of taxes, the Respondent
violate Rule 84(). (Petition and Amended Answer $37)
\V. Recommended Sanction

[At the Hearing, the ODC contended thatthe appropiate sanction inthis mater is a public
reprimand witha two-year probation wih certsn conitons. (Te. at p. 105) The Respondent,
through his counsel, conceded thatthe presumpsive sanction is public reprimand, but contended
thatthe appropiate end result is private admonition with condition that inlude probation,
during which the Respondent would provide compliance pe-certifeaion. (Tr at pp. 126,139
140) For the reasons which follow, the Pane recommends thatthe Respondent be subject toa
public reprimand anda two-year probation during which the Respondent must provide: 1 pre-
certfeation by a licensed certified public accountant who has attended the LFCP training with
tis Ceicates of Compliance filed in 2017 and 2018, sending a copy ofeach pre-cerifiation to
the ODC; and 2) notin

 

to the ODC within 15 days of filing the return and paying his City
‘of Wilmington Net Profits taxes for tax years 2016 and 2017.
‘VI. Rationale for Recommended Sanction

{In making its recommendation, the Panel has utilized the four-part framework set forth in
the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards"). To. promote
‘consistency and predictability in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Delaware Supreme
Cour looks to the ABA Standards. In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724, 735-736 (Del. 2003) (citations
fomitted), The ABA Standards’ framework considers: (I) 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. Jd.
1. The Ethical Duties Violated.

‘As previously recited, the ODC alleged, the Respondent admitted, and the Pane!
determined that the Respondent commited misconduct in violation of Professional Rules of
Conduct 1.5(F) (failing to provide the client with a fee agreement and/or written statement of
‘eamed fees atthe time fees were withdrawn); 1.15(a) (filing to safeguard client funds); 1.15(4)
(failing to properly maintain financial books and records); 53 (filing to supervise a nonlawyer
assistant; 8.4(¢) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

 

istepresentation);
‘and 8.4(4) 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 vi

 

of duties owed by the Respondent to clients (Rules 1.5 and 1.15(a)), violations of duties owed by
Respondent to the legal system (Rules 8.4(c) and (d)), and violations of duties owed by
Respondent asa professional (Rules 1.15(d) and 5.3). See ABA Standards 4.0, 6.0, and 7.0,
2. State of Mind.

‘The ODC contends, the Respondent agrees, and the Panel finds that the Respondent's
‘mental state was negligence. (Tr. at pp. 109, 111, 132.) “Negligence” is defined in the ABA

‘Standards as “the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that citcumstances exist or tha

 

result wil follow, which failure

 

«8 deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer
would exercise inthe situation.” The Respondent acknowledged his responsibilty to maintain
the books and records and testified that he was probably deficient

 

leaving, maintenance
obligations toa bookkeeper who did not have as much expesience and appreciation of accounting
Principles as his prior bookkeeper. (Tr. at pp. 1819) The Panel accepts the Respondent's
¥unrefuted testimony that he personally performed the reconciliations regularly, albeit not always

Within a monthly cycle, and that his software was unable to print previous reconeili

 

reports.
(Tr. al pp. 21-23.) The Respondent also testified to being confused about clients, resulting in
the $1,000 discrepancy. (Tr. at pp. 24, 40.) Additionally, he admitted that he did not pay enough
attention 1o whether notices were being sent to clients when funds were withdrawn, and he
should have reviewed the file missing a fee agreement and noticed its absence. (Te. at p24.)
‘With regard to the delinquent City of Wilmington Net Profits taxes, the Respondent testified that,
unlike other taxes, there was no automated program that would separate the funds subject to that
‘ax and s0 it was a cumbersome process that should have been delegated to someone else,
allowing the Respondent to focus onthe practice of law. (Tr. at pp. 49-51.)

In light ofthe above, the Panel finds that the Respondent was negligent. See, eg, In the
Matter of Gray, 152 A.3d $81, 2016 WL 7188110 (Del. 2016) (approving Board determination
‘of acting negligently in having deficiencies in accounts, filing inaccurate certificate of
‘Compliance, and failing to pay payroll taxes).

3. Actual or Potential Injury.

‘There was no testimony or evidence presented that the misconduct actually harmed any
of the Respondent's clients. However, actual injury is not required. See, eg, In re Benson, 77
‘A.2d 258, 262 (Del. 2001).

 

‘With respect to potential injury, the Respondent's contention is that the record lacks
‘evidence to support even the potential for harm because the Respondent was performing the

reconcil

 

ions and was simply unable to reproduce the timely reports later. (Te. at 133)
However, the Panel considers that too nartow a view of the record, focusing only on the
‘counting issues while ignoring taxes paid nearly two years ate, a fe agreement not provided
to clin, and a Certifieate of Compliance filed with misepresentatons. “Potential injury” i

defined in the ABA Standards as “the harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the
profession tha is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer’s misconduct, and which, but
for some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's

 

‘isconduct.” The record reflects that potential for injury to a client existed, in thatthe client
Who did not receive a fee agreement might not have understood thatthe unearned portion of the
fee was refundable. Additionally, with respect tothe legal system, potential injury existed, as the
Court likely would have relied on the Certificate of Compliance, but forthe compliance audit.
‘See in re Benson, 774 A.2d 258, 262-263 (Del. 2001) (stating the Delaware Supreme Court's
“means of monitoring a lawyer's compliance with record keeping obligations is dependent upon
the lawyer’s accurate, written representations as part of the annual registration process"),
Finally, the Respondent's contention regarding the record-keeping runs counter to Delaware
precedent. See in re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724 (Del. 2003) (applying ABA Standard 7.3 and
disagreeing with the board's conclusion that potential for harm was minimal when sttomey
{led to maintain proper books and records and pay taxes when his firm's main office handled
record-keeping duties and many of its major clients performed their own audit)
4. Presumptive Sanction

‘The ODC contends, the Respondent agrees, and the Panel finds that the Respondent's
‘mental state was negligence. (Tr. at pp. 111, 112, 113-114, 126,) Where, as in this matter, the
conduct involves negligent acts with injury or potential injury, these provisions point generally to
‘8 public reprimand as an appropriate sanction, See ABA Standards 4,13, 4.63, 6.13 and 73. The
Presumptive sanction must then factor in the presence or absence of any mitigating or
aggravating factors.
5. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors.

‘ABA Standard 9.22 sets fort the following non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors:
(2) proc disciplinary offenses;
(dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) apattem of misconduct;
(@) muiple offenses;

(©) bed 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, ot other deceptive practices during the
Aiscptnary process;

(€) refusal to acknowledge wrongful narure of conduct

(vulnerability of victim:

(@ substantial experience inthe practice of law;

indifference to making restiat

 

(illegal conduct, including that invotving the use of controlled substances.
(ABA Standard § 9.22)
‘The ODC contended the applicability of (a), (c), (4), and i). (Tr. at pp. 114-115.) The

Panel agrees that the aggravating factors are: (a), based on the Respondent's five private

 

‘admonitions for prior disciplinary offenses'; (), based on the pattern of misconduct involving
thyee different clients and multiple years of untimely taxes; (d), based on the multiple offenses

involving five different Rules; and (), based on his law practice exceeding thirty years.

 

“The ODC andthe Respondent's counsel reached difrng conclusions on wheter the preset violations fl within
the scope of practice management” along with he Respondent's pric dacpinary record fl. (Tm pp 04 124-
125,138) The Delaware Supreme Court as found misconduct made daring pretiton fr smile es signa
and iturbing” tn re Spier, 78 A24 14,118 (De. 2001). The Court bas azo approved a Board
‘recommendation for a public reprimand night of an atorey's prior disciplinary procndng relating delinguent
{axpaymens. Inthe Mater of Finesrans,32 A34 978,979 (Del. 2011), Hee the Respondents prot depline
involved dierent Rules and dissimilar acts. While that may reduce he sgiicnce and avoid “dsrbing there
‘us sll be weight given wa disciplinary record involving ive admonitions

2

 
‘ABA Standard 9.32 sets forth the following non-exhaustive list of fictors 10 be

‘considered in mi

 

(absence ofa prior disciplinary record;
(b) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) personal or emotional problems;
(4) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(©) full and fre disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative atitude toward proceedings;
(0 inexperience in the practice of law;
(8) character or reputation;
(b) physical disability;
(@ 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;

(@) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency ormental disabil

 

‘demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and
(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence ofthat misconduct is unlikely;
linary proceedings;

 

@éetay in
(&) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(remorse;

(tn) remoteness of prior offenses,

(ABA Standard § 9.32)
[At the Hearing, the Respondent's counsel asserted tothe Panel that factors (), (8), €),
(©, (D, and (should be considered. (Te. at pp. 136-138) The ODC acknowledged the
existence of al ofthe aforementioned factors, except for remotenes of prio offenses, (Tat pp.
Maia)

With espect to factor (m), the most recent admonition occurred in 2013, less than a year
before the Respondent fled to timely ile and pay his 2013 Cty of Wilmington Net Profs ax

‘That admonition cannot be deemed remote in time? The admonitions in 1990, 1993, and 199%

 

are certainly remote in time. The admonition issued in Jaruary 2006, over a decade ago, is less
0, but still remote in time. See In re Thompson, 911 A.2d 373, 376 n, 9 (Del. 2006) (finding, in
the context of prior disciplinary record, an admonition from nine years earlier to be remote in
time and only worthy of “some limited weight”)

Regardless, the evidence plainly reflects a number of mitigating factors, specifically: (b)
‘an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (4) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to
rectify consequences of misconduct, () full and free disclosure to the ODC and a very
cooperative

 

tude toward these proceedings; (g) excellent character or reputation; and (1)
sincere remorse.
‘The Panel finds that the overall balance berween the aforementioned aggravating and

‘mitigating factors does not warrant a reduction ofthe presumptive sanction of public reprimand.
6. Precedent

Lastly, the Panel believes that recommending public reprimand in this matter is
Consistent with Delaware Supreme Court precedent. [T]he objectives of any lawyer sanction

‘should be to protect the public, to advance the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in

 
the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct." Jn re Doughty, 832
‘A2d 724, 735-736 (Del. 2003) (citations omined).
With regard to an appropriate sanction, counsel forthe Respondent directed the Panel's

attention to In re Woods, ~- A.3d ~--,2016 WL 3886148 (Del. 2016), and In re Martin, 35 A.3d

 

419, 2011 WL 2473325 (Del. 2011), which both involved attomeys who agreed to a private
‘admonition and probation with conditions. (Tr. at p. 127.) The private admonitions became
‘public when the attomey in each matter then violated a condition ofthe probation, specifically
the need to provide a pre-certification for a Certificate of Compliance. While the these two cases
involve violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.¢ and, in the case of Jn re Martin, Rule $.3, unlike the
‘resent matter, neither Jn re Woods nor Inre Martin reflects the additional violation of Rule |.

The Respondent's counsel also points to the Summaries of Representative Delaware
Precedents re: Books and Records Deficiencies, Delinquent Lawyer Tax Obligations, and False
Certificates of Compliance (“the Summaries"), beginning on page 46, following an
acknowledged number of cases with public reprimands. The Summaries identify five matters
‘with Cour-imposed private admonition and probation, two from 2002 and one each from 1999,
1996, and 1989. The most recent matters, which are from over fourteen years ago, only involved
Violations of Rules 1.15, 5.3 (in Del. Supr. No. 261, 2002 only), and 8.4(4). The matter sub
Judice includes an additional violation of Rules 1.5.

More importantly, much more recent Delaware Supreme Court precedent calls for a
public reprimand. From 2016, the Board, in Jn re Gray, 2016 WL. 7188110 (Del. 2016), noted
‘the primary basis for declining to recommend a private admonition as the violations including

failure to file and pay taxes, in addition to the books and records violations. ‘The same is true of

15
the manerat hand. There is els the additonal violation of Rule 1.5 due tothe lack ofa fee
sereement and writen statements a thet offer withdrawal

(nthe day before the Hearing, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision in In re
Castro, 2017 WL 1376411 (Del. Ape. 12, 2017). The Respondent's counsel attempis to
<isinguish that precedent fom the present mater based on this mater’s purported lack of
findings regarding absent fee agreements, negative cient balances, commingling. and, most
importantly, the record-keeping issues spanning mitple reporting periods. (Tt at pp. 129-132)
However, the case at bar does involve an absent fe agreement negative client balance, and
recordkeeping issues spaming multiple periods, specifically, wo tx years. Unlike In re
Casto, te Respondent ha also been found to have violate Rule 53. Additionally, while In re
Castro and this matter have comparable mitigating factors, there was only one “lukewarm”

‘aggravating factor in In re Castro, compared with several aggravating factors here, including a

 

prior disciplinary record of five sdonions.
Vit Conetusion

Based onthe foregoing considerations, the Panel recommends as action ofthe Boar that
‘he sanctions set forth in Section V of ths Report be imposed upon the Respondent, nciuing
the imposition of costs ofthese disciplinary proceedings, including the LFCP audit in 2016,

pursuant to Delaware Lawyers’ Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 27

Respectfully submited,

 
Koa Se Basie

2

Dennis Klima
Date: L

”