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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 432-2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF A §
MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE § No. 432, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE 4
STATE OF DELAWARE §  ODCFile No. 2012-0228.-B
§  ODCFile No. 2012-108242-B
CHRISTOPHER POVERMAN —§
ESQUIRE, §
§

Submitted: September 20, 2013
‘Decided: November 7, 2013

Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices
ORDER

This 7* day of November, 2013, the Board on Professional Responsibility
having filed its Report with this Court on September 20, 2013, pursuant to Rule
9(4) of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility; and the respondent
and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel having filed no objections to the Board’s
Report; and, the Court having reviewed the matter pursuant to Rule 9(¢) of the
Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the Board’s report filed on
September 20, 2013 (attached) is hereby APPROVED with the recommendation of
a public reprimand to include the following conditions: (1) if Respondent does not
seek inactive status within thirty days of the Court's Order, he must undergo a

mental health evaluation and monitoring by DE-LAP for a period of one year, and
(2) payment of the Continuing Legal Education Commission late fees and ODC
costs.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice
EFiled: Sep 20 2013 09:22,
Filing 1D 84247477
Case Number 432,2013

  

Susan H. Kirk-Ryan
302 Brockton Road
Wilmington, DE 19803,

September 20, 2013

BYELECTRONICTRANSMISSION == CONFIDENTIAL.

Ms. Cathy L. Howard
Clerk, Supreme Court of Delaware
55 The Green

Dover, DE 19901

 

IMO: Christopher W. Poverman, Esquire, No.432, 2013,
(Board Case Nos, 2012-0228-B: 108242-B) E-FILED

Dear Ms. Howard:

Pursuant tothe September 10, 2013 request ofthe Court, enclosed please
find the redacted version of our Panel's August 16, 2013 report and
recommendation in the above-captioned matter.

Please contact me ifthe Court should require anything further.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan H. Kirk-Ryan (LD.# 1070)

Enclosure

ce: Christopher W. Paverman, Esquire (with enclosures)
Jennifer-Kate Aaronson, Esquire (with enclosures)
Ms. Carey C. McDaniel (with enclosures)
Patricia O. Vella, Esquire (with enclosures)
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(OF THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE,

IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER )
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME )
COURT OF DELAWARE, Board Case Nos. 2012-0228-B, 108242-B
CHRISTOPHER W. POVERMAN, )
RESPONDENT )

BOARD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SANCTIONS
[Portions Redacted]

I. Procedural Background

Pending before a panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the
“Board”) are two Petitions for Discipline: Board Case No. 2012-0228-B, dated March 6,
2013, and Board Case No. 108242-B, dated May 1, 2013, involving Christopher W.
Poverman, Esquire (“Respondent”), a member of the bar ofthe Supreme Court of
Delaware. A hearing was scheduled for Board Case 2012-0228-B for May 23, 2013, but
the hearing was continued and the two cases were consolidated, atthe unopposed request
of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC").

Respondent filed a Response tothe Petition in Board Case No. 2012-0228-
BB dated April 19, 2013, but never filed a response to the petition in Board Case No.
108242.8.

 

‘The Board heard the two eases on June 10,2013. Atthe hearing,
Respondent admited to violations of both counts of the first petition, Board Case 2012-
0228-8: 3.4(@) (‘Respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of ¢
tribunal”) and 84 ( (“Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial wo the administeation
ofjustice”). Respondent also admitted to violations ofboth counts of the second
petition, Board Case No, 108242/B: 8.4 (c) (Respondent engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or msrepesentaton”) and 8.4 (4) (‘Respondent engaged in
conduct prejudicial tothe administration of justice”

‘ODC and Respondent submited Amended Joint Exhibits prior to the
hearin, and an Amended Joint Stipulation of Fact atthe hesring. Because Respondent
admitted to the violations in all counts of both petitions, the hearing focused on the
appropriate sanction for those violations.

‘ODC called Respondent as a witness atthe hearing, and Respondent also
testified on his own behalf,

Pursuant to Rule 9(4) ofthe Delaware Lawyers" Rules of Disciplinary
Procedute, ths i the Board's Report and Recommendation of Sanctions.

TE, Factual Findings of the Board

A. Background

Respondent was admitted tothe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of Delaware on
March 8, 1991. Amended Joint Stipulation of Fact (“Stipulation”) $1.

Respondent was admitted tothe Bars of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and the Distict of Columbia at approximately the same ts
Exhibit (“Exhibit”) A, Deposition Transcript (“Deposition”) page 2.

From 1999 to 2005, Respondent was on inactive status with the Delaware
Bar, Petition for Reinststement, $4 and 5, Exhibit K3.

Respondent was issued a Rule to Show Cause on March 28, 2005, for his
failure to file his 2005 Annual Registration Statement, and directed to appear in person
before the Supreme Court of Delaware on April 20,2005. Exhibit K1.

Respondent ftiled to appear before the Court on April 20, 2005, and as @
result was suspended as a member of the State of Delaware, by Order ofthe Supreme
(Court. Exhibit K2

‘Nearly four years later, on February 10, 2009, Respondent filed a Petition
for Reinstatement, Exhibit K3, citing among other things as reasons for his delay in
to the 2005 Court Order:

# [Redacted]

© [Redacted]
‘While the Respondent had his old firm forwarding his mailto his Virginia home,
he failed to inform them of his new Baltimore address, 90 he was “not getting
forwarded mail on a timely basis.”

‘© Respondent received a large packet of mail in May 2005, which included the
Registration application and Rule to Show Cause. Respondent contacted ODC
and leamed he was suspended, and would have o petition for reinstatement.

 

 

period. Joint

 
‘© InJuly 2005, Respondent [Redacted] “lost track of my responsibility to resolve
‘my registration problem.”

‘+ Inlate 2005 (Redacted) “I froze.”

'* Respondent contacted ODC to begin reinstatement in 2007[Redacted}
Respondent eventually filed the 2009 petition.

‘+ IfRespondent were reinstated, he ssid he would “continue to adhere tothe strong
standards to which Delaware attorneys are held.” “T continue to attend CLE even
though the states that I practice in...do not require it.” Reinstatement Petition
letter, Exhibit K.

 

‘The Supreme Court reinstated Respondent as an active lawyer in good
standing on March 10, 2009, rescinding its April 2005 suspension. Exhibit KS.

 

B. Board Case No. 2012-0228-B: The CLE Deficiency

Respondent worked for Chartwell Law Offices, out oftheir Wilmington
‘office (“Chartwell Wilmington”) at 300 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, DE, from
August 1, 2011, until May 31, 2012, and out of their Baltimore Office (“Chartwell
Baltimore”) st 2200 Easter Avenue, Baltimore, MD, until June 15,2012. Thereafter
‘Respondent was of counsel for Michael Zwaig, Esq. atthe same 2200 Easteen Avenue
fddress, Respondent was terminated on March 11,2013. Hearing Transeript
( Hearing") pages 8, 21-22, 26.

Respondent's 2011 Annual Registration Statement, filed on March 21,
2011, listed his office as Funk & Bolton, P.A., 36 S. Charles Street, his home address as
2906 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, and his email as epoverman@ifblay.com. Exhibit H.

Respondent's 2012 Annual Registration Statement listed his office address
at Chartwell Wilmington; his home address as 143 S. Linwood Ave., Baltimore, and his
‘email as cpoverman@chartwelllaw.com. Exhibit I.

Respondents 2013 Annual Registration, fled on March 27, 2013, lists no
office address; the 143 8. Linwood Ave. home address; an alternate “home” address,
2200 Easter Avenue, and an email address of chrispoverman@verizon.net. Exit

Respondent continues to maintain the 2200 Eastern Avenue address
“Technically I stil keep that office. You stil send me mail there.” Hearing page 2.

‘As an active member of the Delaware Bar, Respondent was required 10
complete continuing legal education (CLE) requirements and submit a verified transcript

 

1

 
by Febrary 1, 2012. Even ihe hed not completed the required CLE, Respondent was
obliged o submit transcript and plan of completion. Stipulation $7.

Respondent id not complet 1.7 gonerl cet ofthe required eet
hours of CLE or certify a 2011 transrpt and Executive Director Margot Millar sent
Respondent June 27,2012 email July 19,2012 leter by facsimile and U.S mail, and
a second email on August 14,2012, about Respondent’ filre to complete his CLE
requirements. The emails were addressed to cpoverman@ehartwelisw and eters tothe
Chartwell Wilmington adress, per the Respondents 2012 Registration statement.
Respondent id not answer any ofthe correspondence, Stipulation $8, Exhibits BI, 2,
and 3,

 

Ms. Millar sent an August 15, 2012 Statement of Noncompliance
regarding Respondent to ODC, with a Notice and copy to Respondent. Stipulation (9,
Exhibit B4,

Patricia Schwartz, Esq., notified Respondent on August 23, 2012, that Ms.
Millar had refered the Respondent's non-compliance with CLE tothe ODC. At that
time Respondent provided ODC his office address as 2200 Eastem Avenue, and provided
his cell phone number. Stipulation $10.

Ms, Schwartz sent an August 24, 2012 leter to Respondent atthe 2200
Eastern Avenue address, about the CLE referral and requested documentation of
‘compliance by September 7,2012. Respondent denies receiving the letter, but in any
‘event, didnot respond. Response to Petition for Discipline 6, Stipulation 1, Exhibit
cl

Ms. Schwartz sent a September 19, 2012 follow-up letter to Respondent at
the 2200 Eastern Avenue address, citing her August 4 letter, reminding him of ODC’s
request, and of Respondent's duty under Rule 8.1 (b) of the Delaware Lawyer’s Rules for
Professional Conduct to respond to ODC's demand for information. Respondent admits
he received the letter, and admits that he didnot respond to it. Stipulation $12, Exhibit
2.

Jennifer-Kate Aaronson, Chief Counse! of ODC, sent an October 26, 2012
Jeter, also to 2200 Eastern Avenue, referring to Ms, Schwartz’ August 4 and September
19, 2012 leters, noting Respondents violation of 8.1 (b), and informing Respondent of @
formal ODC investigation and scheduled presentation tothe Preliminary Review
‘Committee PRC) on Wednesday, December 52012, ODC geve Respondent until
Wednesday, November 21, 2012, to provide any writen submission he might want to be
considered by the PRC in advance ofits meeting, although written submissions received
before December 5 could be submitted atthe meeting. Exhibit C3.

Respondent admits he received Ms. Aaronson’s October 26, 2012 letter,
and admits that he didnot respond to it. Stipulation $13.

ODC sent a November 15, 2012 leter to Respondent, noting « November
2,202 telephone call to ODC from Amy Dana, Respondents wife, and attempts to
retum Ms, Dans’s cll. ODC left message for Respondent, onthe cell phone number he
provided to ODC. Stipulation 14,

[Respondent telephoned ODC on Novernber 21,2012 (the date his written
submission was due for advance consideration by the PRC), acknowledging receipt of the
‘September 19 and October 26 ODC leters. Respondent told ODC that he would contact
the CLE Commission and arrange a make-up plan to correct his CLE deficiencies forthe
reporting period ending December 31,2011. Stipulation 715.

[Respondent contacted the CLE Commission on December 6, 2012,
‘arranging completion of « make-up plan, preferably by December 14, but definitely by
December 31,2012, Ms. Milla ofthe CLE Commission confirmed ther conversation by
‘December 7,2012 email, in which she recommended specific online CLE programs and
noted the accrual of late fees for continued noncompliance, some of which could be
‘waived upon certification of Respondent's transcript. Ms, Milla requested that
Respondent notify her immediately upon completion of the credit. Stipulation 416,

Exhibit BS.

‘Ms. Millar ofthe CLE Commission sent a further emi reminder to
Respondent on December 7, 2012, which Respondent received, reminding him thet he
‘must update his contact information with the Supreme Court. Exhibit B6, Hearing page
a.

Respondent did not complete the CLE by December 31,2012, and did not

communicate with the CLE Commission or with ODC.

 
‘ODC sent a February 18, 2013 notice to Respondent at 2200 Eastern
‘Avenue, advising that ODC would present its case tothe PRC on March 6, 2013, and that
Respondent could send writen submissions for consideration by February 27, 2013, for
advance consideration by the PRC, or before March 6 for submission atthe hearing. The
letter summarized the petition to be filed in Case 2012-0228-A. ODC offered
Respondent a private aimonition and two year private probation, ifhe consented in
writing by February 27, 2013. Exhibit CS.

‘ODC sent a March 12, 2013 letter to Respondent at 2200 Eastern Avenue,
advising thatthe PRC found probable cause to support a Petition for Discipline, and
again offering a private admonition with private probation, provided Respondent
accepted the terms ofthe letter by March 29, 2013. Exhibit C6.

Respondent did not complete the required credit hours of CLE until after
Respondent was served with an April 10, 2013 notice of this hearing. He completed a
portion of a CLE seminar (1.7 credit hours) on April 30, 2013, the day Respondent was
deposed in connection with this case, and completed the seminar on May 15, 2013. Joint
Stipulation 417, Exhibit A, Deposition page 61, Exhibit F.

C. Board Case No, 108242-B: The 2013 Annual Registration Statement

Respondent was required under Supreme Court Rule 69(6) to file an
online Annual Registration Statement by March 1, 2013. Members ofthe Bar ae sent
‘email notification with a link to register. Stipulation 18.

Respondent filed to complete his 2013 Annual Registration Statement by
‘March 1, 2013. Stipulation 419.

‘The Delaware Supreme Court issued a March 12, 2013, Rule to Show
‘Cause, mailed to Respondent at his home adress (143 S. Linwood Ave., Baltimore),
‘compelling Respondent to appear in person before the Delaware Supreme Court on
March 27, 2013, at 3:30 pum. to “show cause why [Respondent] should not be suspended
‘or sanctioned...fr...uilure to comply with Rule 69, as evidenced by [Respondent's]
apparent failure to file (his} 2013 Annual Registration Statement, pay..assessments and
‘the $300 late filing fee.” Exhibit E, Stipulation $20.

   

 

 

 

 

 
‘ODC sent a March 19, 2013 letter to Respondent's 2200 Easter Avenue
address, enclosing the Court's Rule to Show Cause which directed Respondent 1 appear
‘on March 27. Exhibit C7, Stipulation $21

‘On March 27, 2013, the date Respondent was due to appear before the
‘Supreme Court to respond tothe Rule to Show Cause, Respondent telephoned Cathy
Howard, Clerk ofthe Supreme Court, and advised her that he would complete his Annual
Registration Statement online. Stipulation 22.

Based on Respondent's conversation with her, Ms. Howard believed that
Respondent had two stokes, which impeded his completion of his Annual Registration
Statement. Ms. Howard sent a March 27, 2013 email to ODC stating: “[Respondent)
recently had two strokes, He is going to ...complete and pay his annual registration
today ~ [told him it needed tobe done before 3:30 p.m. [the time for Respondent's

 

scheduled appearance before the Court)”. Exhibit G.

[Respondent was never formally diagnosed as having had a stroke.
‘Stipolation 23.

Respondent completed his 2013 Annual Registration Statement on March
27, 2013, and the Court withdrew its Rule to Show Cause. Joint Stipulation $24, Exhibit
L

In his 2013 Annual Rej
Inactive Status, Respondent certified th

“ [There are no charges pending or threatened against me before any Court, the
Board on Professional Responsibility, or any other similar disciplinary ageney in
this or any other jurisdiction. I further certify that I do not know of any facts
respecting my conduct which would result inthe filing of charges or disciplinary
action against me.”

Stipulation 25, Exhibit J

 

Statement, in applying fora Certificate of

 

‘Thus, at the time the Respondent made that certification in his 2013,
‘Annual Registration Statement, he was aware of his failure to complete CLE as required,
and was on notice of ODC's open investigation ofthe CLE deficiency as referred to ODC
by the CLE Commission in August 2012. Respondent was aware thatthe ODC had
planned to present his case to the PRC in October 2012, and that he did nat follow
‘through on a corrective plan he agreed to by December 31, 2012. ODC sent notice, to the
address provided by Respondent, that ODC was again presenting its case to the PRC in
‘March 2013. By the time he filed the Annual Registration on March 27, 2013,
Respondent had not yet completed his CLE requirements for 2011,

 

IIL Standard of Proof
‘The allegations of misconduct set forth in the ODC Petitions for
Discipline must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Del. Disc. Proc. R. 15

IV. Violations of the Rutes

‘As the ODC Petitions set fort, and as Respondent eventually admitted at
the June 10, 2013 hearing, Respondent violated several of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules
‘of Professional Conduct:

Board Case No. 2012-0228-B

In Board Case No. 2012-0228-B, Respondent violated Rule 3.4(c) (Count
(One), which states that a lawyer shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the
rules ofa tribunal.” Respondent failed to mest his CLE requirements under Delaware
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Rule 5(a for the period ending in December 2011,
and failed to include a transcript and plan for making up deficiencies. Respondent admits
the violation. Response to Petition, Exhibit D2 414, Hearing pages 5-6.

Respondent also violated Rule 8 4(4) (Count Two), by engaging in
“conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” in that he failed to respond to
‘communications from the CLE Commission and failed to complete the CLE
requirements. Respondent admits the violation. Hearing pages 5-6.

In fact, Respondent did not fully complete the CLE requirements and
obtain a Cerificate of Completion forthe final general credits for his 2011 requirements
until May 15, 2013, after both petitions inthis case were filed withthe Board on
Professional Responsibility, andthe case had been scheduled to be heard by the Board
Exhibit,

 

 

Board Case No. 108242-B

In Board Case No. 108242-B, Respondent violated Rule 8.4(¢) (Count
‘One), by engaging in “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or mistepresentation,”
in that he falsely certified to the Delaware Supreme Court in his 2013 Annual
[Registration that “there are no charges pending or threatened against me before any court,
the Board on Professional Responsibility, or any similar diseiplinary ageney in this or any
other jurisdiction.” Respondent further certified that he did not know of “any facts
respecting my conduct which would result inthe filing of charges or disciplinary action
against me.” Exhibit J. Respondent admits the Count One violation. Hearing page 6.

By this conduct, Respondent also violated Rule 8.4(4) (Count Two),
engaging in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Respondent admits the
Count Two violation. Hearing page 6.

V. The June 10 Board hearing
jlations were admitted, the Board hearing addressed
sanctions. Respondent was the only witness.

During the course of his testimony before the Board, Respondent testified
that he left Chartwell Wilmington at the end of May 2012, and admitted thet he did not
notify the Delaware Supreme Court of his change of firm address (required within 30,
ays under Supreme Court Rule 69(h)) nor did he notify the Delaware State Bar
Association, Hearing pages 8-9.

Although Respondent admitted the violations he maintained in his
response tothe petition in Board Case No, 20120-0228-B, in his April 30, 2013
‘deposition, an in his testimony atthe hearing that he did not receive some critical letters
‘and notices from the Supreme Court, from the CLE Commission, and from ODC
(although the correspondence was sent to the address he provided), and that he had
attempted to notify the Court of his change of address through his wife. Respondent
offered various reasons for not responding to the CLE Commission and ODC, or
‘completing the requirements:

‘+ Respondent indicated that he fled an answer othe second petition, which was
not received: “I did —well, asked my wife to put in the mail..” Hearing page 6.

‘+ Respondent did not notify the Court of his change of address after May 31, 2012:
“Lpersonally did not. I thought ~ my wife was helping me. The Bs

Because all

 

 

 

 

ore office
was just me, I did not have any administrative assistant]. My wife was primarily
smy administrative assistan(t]. I had asked her to take care ofthat, but...did not
properly supervise he...” Hearing page 8.
Respondent did not notify the Bar Association of his change of address: “The
same answer, My wife was helping me, [had asked her to take care ofthat. In
‘my discussions with her she claims that she did do that, but apparently, again, I
id not properly supervise her in that, so apparently it was not changed.” Hearing
page 9.

Respondent sa he did not actually receive the June 27, uly 19, and August 14,
2012 attempts by the CLE Commission to contact him about his CLE
Aeficiencies, because his former employer (Chartwell Wilmington) only sent mail
“intermittently until the end of May, and then after May I was not...receiving
anything from them.” Hearing page 10.

Respondent admitted speaking to ODC’s Ms, Schwartz on August 23, 2013, about
CCLE?s refering his case to ODC. Hearing page LI

Respondent admitted receiving Ms. Schwartz's September 19, 2012 leter,
including her reference to her August 24,2012 letter and the September 7, 2012
deadline fora response, and a reference to Rule 8.1(b) violation if Respondent
{riled to respond to ODC. Hearing page 12.

Respondent admitted he did nothing in response to the September 19, 2012 ODC
letter, but said, “0 wasn't intentional, but yes..1 had been traveling alot ofthis
time....fRedacted]. I was in Europe and I was traveling to other places. So it was
‘one of those situations where hours tumed to days, days tumed to weeks, and you
‘don't realize how much time has passed [redacted]
was serambling”” Hearing pages 13-14
[Respondent admitted that he eventually made an agreement with Ms. Millar ofthe
CLE Commission to complete the missing 1.7 hours of 2011 CLE credit (for
which Ms, Millar suggested several online course options) by December 31,2012,
but failed to do so. Hearing pages 18-19.

Respondent gave as reasons for his failure to complete the 1.7 hours - which
could have been completed online at any time and place (Exhibit A, Deposition
page 28) - between his December 6, 2012 agreement, and December 31, 2012:

(© His travel to Florida for work from December 11-13;
(© His becoming ill fora week, beginning December 18 (Hearing page 53);
© Christmas week; and

 

was scrambling, my wife

 

10
© [Redacted]. Hearing page 19.

‘+ Respondent sad he failed to notify the CLE Commission that he did not meet the
December 31, 2012 extended deadline because, “Seriously, it was one of many
things that I...was unable to accomplish because Iwas going in too many
directions.” Exhibit A, Deposition page 30. Respondent “‘otally forgot about
‘what was going on. I had, Ihad forgotten about alot of things, actually.” Hearing
age 20.

Although Ms. Millar had reminded Respondent by email on December 7,2012, to
update his addresses with the Supreme Court (an email he admitted receiving),
[Respondent did not do so, and said he didnot receive ODC's subsequent
[February and March 2013] letters about his CLE deficiencies because the letters
‘were sent to his 2200 Eastern Avenue address - the address he provided to ODC
in August 2012, and the office he stil keeps. Heating pages 21-23.

‘+ Regarding Respondents statement in his April 22 leter to ODC (Exhibit D2) that
atthe time of his 2013 Annual Registration, he had “no knowledge that any
<isciplinary action was being taken against” him, Respondent ssid,

“Think what [ meant was [was unaware of the petition. That's poor
wording on my pat...when I go back and thin...J was aware that you
[ODC] wore investigating the situation and were going to present i..t0
the panel think what would have been a better statement would have
ben that I was not aware that a petition for discipline had been fled.”
Hearing pages 24-25.

‘© Responding to ODC’s point thatthe Annual Registration certifies that thee are no
‘charges pending or threatened before any cour, the Board, or any similar
disciplinary action, and thas Respondent's March 27, 2013 statement was false,
Respondent said:

 

“Technically itis, absolutely. As I said to you in my deposition, i
mistake, [ODC: A clerical eror?] I would view it that way, yes... was
‘trying to remember if it was the night before or the day of the filing of the
registration, I had been cleaning the house, going through some mail I had.
[Redacted]. I was cleaning the house. I found the leter, the [March 12]
notice to show cause that hed been sent to my house actually by Cathy

 

u
Howard, so I immediately took eare of it as soon as Isaw it. And so Iwas
dealing with that a that time and I was rushing and as I was filling it ou ,
‘you know, stupid on my part. So, you know, under the Doughty cas...1
feel like based upon the way the ease is read, that my mistake, any mistake
really is negligence...and would be considered a misrepresentation ~ oF
‘misrepresentation can be a negligent misrepresentation... Technically, yes,
it was a misrepresentation, but believe that it was a clerical

Hearing pages 26.27.

 

imisrepresentation, if you wi

 

Respondent admitted to saying “{sJomething kin to” a statement that he
suffered strokes to the Clerk of the Court, Ms. Howard, on March 27, 2013. Hearing page
3334

Respondent sent an April 9, 2013 email to Ms. Kimberly Jones of ODC,
stating that he hada “second stroke in December [2012}.” Respondent ssid, “The doctor
thinks I had one, in, the frst time, frst one would have been December. It was the
second one in January when I ended up in the hospital and then lf... meant January [in
‘email to Ms, Jones.” Hearing page 35.

Respondent acknowledges that he has never been formally diagnosed as
having hada stroke, Hearing page 36, Stipulation $23. Respondent has not seen his
primary cere representative [redacted] fora physical examination. His wife spoke to
[redacted] by telephone on Respondent's behalf, and Respondent eventually spoke to her
by telephone as well. Exhibit A, Deposition pages 31-33, Hearing pages 36-37, 46-48.

‘When asked about the parallels between Respondent's 2009 letter tothe
‘Supreme Court regarding his failure to timely file his 2005 Annual Registration and the
‘wo Board cass at issue in this hearing, including statements about not getting his mail
forwarded on a timely basis, redacted), Respondent stated:

(Redacted)
In testifying on his own behalf, Respondent noted, among other things:
‘+ “I'm absent minded. I've always relied on secretarial help and things to make sure
that I didn’t forget things. .. cannot find all of my certificates, but I fel very
confident that [had completed my CLE. ... Thad asked my wife, who was acing as

 

2
‘my administrative assstant..to take care of finding out, when I got notification of.
these problems... . had asked her to change the Delaware address... . When I look
‘at what the obligations are under the rules its my obligation to supervise my
“wife... my administrative asistant, I definitely, in looking back on it, did not
‘handle that properly, I'm not going to try to make any excuses for that." ‘Hearing
pages 42-44.
“{Wyhen I spoke with ..Ms. Schwartz...in September I was both traveling
‘and..Jooking for another job... know Ms. Aaronson...believes that I blew her off.
However, that was not my intention. .. Itwas truly a situation where time got

away from me. Lasked Amy, my wife, to follow up with what was going on when I
realized that time had slipped away. had every intention of taking care of|
‘everything. ... [Redacted]" Hearing pages 44-46.
“{Redacted)... If I were in (ODC’s] shoes I would have sanctioned me as well, ..for
‘no other reason than letting this get away from me.” Hearing pages 49- 50
Regarding the Annual Registration/fale certification: “{DJaly I think about why did
{answer that question that way... . What was I thinking?.. I didn't, beeause I didn't
‘have the petition, I didn't think of it that way. Even though [knew I did, why did 1
answer—I'm not even sue I properly read the question, [Redacted]. I don’t even
know why I answered that way... as rushing. Had I thought through the proces, I
‘would never have answered that way. ... It was not my intention to misrepresent
anything.” Hearing pages 50-51.
“(IJ you look a the timing of things... let's assume three days for ODC’s October
26 letter to reach respondent}, that’s October 29. ...November 15 my wife called Ms.
‘Aaronson on my behalf... tll spoke with her within six days of that [on November
21), ... So Twas responsive to that, in my opinion.” Hearing pages 51-52
“Redacted”

Redacted)”
“(Redacted)”
“fRedacted]. .. Between all ofthat I forgot. Ijust plain out forgot. [Redacted] What
the reasons were, you know, the fact is [forgot ..I'm telling you the tuth.” Hearing
pages 55-56.

 

 

3
VL. Recommended Sanetions

‘A. Positions of ODC and Respondent

‘ODC sought « public admonition withthe conditions that Respondent a)
pay late fees to the CLE Commission $1,285.00); b) pay ODC’s eosts; and c) undergo an
appropriate probationary period. [Redacted] Hearing pages 65-66

‘OC noted that this case deals with violations of duties tothe legal
profession and the legal system, and cited Jn re McDonald, 755 A.24 389, (Del.),
respondent was given a public reprimand for knowingly disobeying a ruling of a
‘wibunal (the respondent had been disciplined previously, and he had failed to respond to
(ODC), and Jn re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724 (Del. 2003) (public reprimand for negligent
risrepresentation on a certificate of compliance regarding books and records). Hearing
pages 57-58.

‘ODC conceded thet Respondent has no prior disciplinary history, but
points to the two offenses inthis consolidated case, where the two offenses were & year
apart. Hearing pages 58-59.

‘ODC argued Respondent could not simply paint himself as forgetful,
‘where ODC itself celled and wrote to Respondent regarding his CLE deficiency for at
least three months, beginning in August 2012, and Respondent remained noncompliant,
although from August until mid-December Respondent did not repor illness or work
problems. Respondent avoided the frst presentation tothe PRC in November 2012 by
‘promising to complete his CLE, but neglected to complete the CLE orto pick up his mail
with further ODC correspondence and the Supreme Court Rule fo Show Cause. Hearing
pages 59-61.

‘ODC argued that Respondent's conduct regarding the false statement on
his Annual Registration statement was knowing, since he spoke with ODC, received at
Teast some of thei letters, and agreed to a makeup plan which he did not complete
Hearing pages 61-62.

‘ODE, citing Jn Re [Private Admonttion] No. 399, 2008 (“Private
Admonition 399"), argued that while thee was no actual injury or harm to clients, there
ore their reporting

 

 

 

is a potential, incalculable injury to the legal system if lawyers can
duties. Hearing pages 62-63,

 

u
‘ODC cited as aggravating factors Respondent's substantial experience
‘with the law his lack of cooperation withthe CLE Commission and ODC; and a pattern
‘of misconduct, namely, the two offenses alleged in these petitions. Hearing page 63.

ODE ssid that Respondent “simply doesn't get it," Hearing page 63, and
that while he admited the violations, he offered excuses: his wife's filings in not
‘changing his addcesses; his former employer (Chartwell) in not forwarding his mal his
medical problems, where he represented tothe Court and ODC that he had two strokes,
although he was never formally diagnosed with a stroke; redacted] was too busy with
‘work to finish is CLE, and was going in oo many directions and pain out forgot
Hearing pages 64-65.

‘ODC pointed out thet Respondent offered the some ofthe same excuses in
2009 when he sought reinstatement [alr having filed to file his 2005 Annual
Registration Statement], Hearing page 65.

{Redacted}. Hearing page 66

Respondent didnot object othe imposition ofa private admonition or
period of probation, but objected oa public reprimand. Hearing page 68-69,

Respondent conceded that he received ODC notices and “did forget to
respond,” Hearing page 68.

[Redacted]. Hearing page 69.

[Redacted]. Hearing page 91.

Respondent denied that his eventual November 21,2012 contact with Ms
‘Aaronson was to avoid a disciplinary hearing. Hearing page 70. Respondent then said
that his work travel didnot affect his ability to complete his CLE. Hearing page 70.
“The combination of the illness and [redacted] caused me to lose track ofthat situation
‘Yes, things were going well forme at work up to that point.[Y]es, would have to

 

agree...that I should have been more proactive. However, I have been in relatively
constant communication with [Ms. Aaronson] throughout this process.” Hearing pages
70-1.

Respondent distinguished MeDonald because the respondent in that case
had been disciplined previously forthe same behavior, and Doughty dealt with books and
records, which could affect a cient and client funds. Respondent said that Private

6
Adinonition 399 was  peivate admonition, andi also addressed financial aspects, such as
taxes, books and records. Hearing page 74.

Respondent conceded his conduct was nepiget, and “it annoys the heck
coutof me that this happened,” but “w]e ae nt talking about situation where we ae
affecting lients...n0t} paying taxes. ..[of{notJaccountng for escrow. We are talking
shout 1.7 hours of CLE, not to minimize, but that’s what we're discussing.” Hearing
pages 74-75.

Respondent agreed he hada lot of experience, and knows hs obligations.

“[Mly lack of response tothe disciplinary process occurred really over a two
‘month period as opposed tothe much more extended period that Ms. Aaronson
‘would like to have you believe, because she would like to have you believe that I
1am making an excuse tat Idi not receive the mal from Chartwell, which i just
notthe case. Iwas not receiving it” Heating page 75.

“Within another six days following the [Thanksgiving] holiday or maybe more
than that, spoke with Ms. Milla Iwas onthe way to geting that done. So
‘was not—once Iwas fully engaged inthe situation, I was not unresponsive.”
Hearing page 76.

*Now...Ms. Aaronson...ppears to want to minimize what has been avery trying
situation for me with respeot to my health, Iam ~- was communicating to people
‘what Twas told and what I believed te situation tobe. Chances are had I not
been friendly with Ms. Howard, [might not have mentioned enything to
(her).oterthan that I wasa’t feeling well, With espect to my email to Ms.
Jones... was i the ear typing on my cell phone and Iwas just typing away, this
is what happened, I forgot, Pm sony. Ithink we have o look at what those mean
inthe state of mind. The sate of mind was negligent, when you look atthe three,
intentional, knowing and negligent." Hearing pages 76-77.

 

“With respect to the handling ofthe CLE, we are talking about negligence.
‘not going to disagree ona technical level, thatthe fact that I did not pick up my
‘mail at a place where I maintained a mailing address is my fault. However, the
‘office was, had generally been very good about forwarding or atleast sending me
an e-mail telling me that I had mal. ...They didn’t send me an e-mail about the

 

 

6
fact that these letters were there. Why that is? I don't know.” Hearing pages 77-
78.

“Fad I received the March letter in time, I would have accepted the private
reprimand along with the probation. When I -you know, just annoys me. I'm
somy." Hearing page 78.

Respondent sid mitigating factors included:

“{Wyhen situations like mine arise [redacted]. It isnot that this isn’t important,
‘but it was not atthe foreftont of my mind, whether
indifferent." Hearing pages 78-79.

 

is right, wrong or

“{Wle have to take into consideration {as mitigating factors] that there were @
‘numberof things happening that took my attention away. {Tt wasn’t as if had
too many cases. Infact, Thad too few. It wasn't as if Twas extending myself
bbeyond what is legitimate within the profession...I thnk i is important to keep in
‘mind... was no longer practicing in Delaware. ...{O]nce Thad got notice of [the
{issues inthis case) I was not practicing law at all. Tam not practicing law now."
Hearing page 79.

[Regarding the 2013 Annual Registration}: “What I recall was either the day
before the show cause hearing or the day of the show cause hearing, picking up
this eter and saying, oh my goodness, it was siting on a table... . We have our
rail stacked up. Iwas helping my wife, was cleaning sorting through things. 1
looked at that, ssid, okay, I need to take care of this. Timmediately got on the
‘phone, I took care of't and I flew through the application process.” Hearing page
80,

 

“Yes, [answered the question that I did not know of anything, answered
affirmatively. Had I really pad attention I wouldn't have answered it that way.
(Can I consider that a clerical mistake, checking the wrong box? No, I eally
can't... What Iam saying is that to the extent that itis negligent, it isthe lowest

”
form of negligence. Its not paying attention to what I was doing, because I was
rushing.” Hearing page 80.

“I don't know why I was not offered the opportunity to corectit..go back to
‘whatever active status I needed to be on until this proceeding was done and Ian
file for inactive status... . Infact, the petition for discipline was filed so quickly
afterall ofthat happened... .” Hearing page 81

“I didn’t want to waste the Court's time, I could easily have gotten inthe ear and
driven to Dover and participated in the [Rule to Show Cause] hearing, But that
‘would have been a waste of the Courts time. I wanted to get it taken care of. I
called Ms. Howard, got it squared away, thought everything was allright. Just
‘was not paying proper attention, didn’t read the question propery... These are
not rtionalizations. These are simply fats. They are not excuses. Its just what
happened... I'm not tying to divert you from your job in what I think is an
appropriate situation to reprimand somebody.” Hearing pages 81-82.

“But is a public reprimand rally the way to go? Certainly it is important for
people to know that they need to file their re ‘and look at them carefully.
‘But think that if they are mishandled, that’s..not ... a matter forthe public to
consider. Especially when ~1 mean, what are we going to tell the legal
community? Read your stuff more carefully? I think everybody knows that.”
Hearing page 82.

  

 

“I spoke with Ms. Schwartz atthe end of August... received a leter from her in
‘September. [started a new job and Iet it slip my mind. In..late October...then
| started to get on the situation and started to respond. ...I didn't get the February
(or March materials. ...I wasn't going to the office on a regular basis. ...As soon
[got the e-mail from Ms. Jones I immediately went over to that office and
picked up everything. 1 did not know that I was not being responsive to Ms.
‘Aaronson in February or March. Had T go it I would have been responsive, as
‘evidenced by the fact that I was being responsive in November and December. 1
don’t know how that applies in this situation with espectto the McDonald case,
of!

 

‘where there was long s

 

not replying.” Hearing pages 83-85.

“(HJ the end I didn't hurt anybody asa client. None of my actions were such that
the public was hurt, And tothe extent thatthe legal system was ut, I think itis
‘minimal and T think that, you know, we are talking about the fact —it wasn't like 1
‘missed all 24 hours of CLE, it wasn’t even like I missed 12 hours. It was 1.7, and
‘twas always my intention to take...a class.” Hearing page 85,

‘ODC conceded tht private admonition would generally be appropriate for
CLE failure to certify, but argued that this involves a second, knowing
misrepresentation tothe Cour regarding the annual registration. ODC distinguished
Private Admonition 399, because that ces involve sincere remorse, apology, and mental
health issues, and argued if Respondent here denies any mental health issues, the
alternative is that he i “recalcitrant to folowing rules and simply thumbs his nose atthe
Court Hearing pages 89-90.

(ODC said hat what the Respondent considered “mitigating factors”
practicing law in Delaware, and that he didnot want to wast the Cour’ time by
appearing ata Rule to Show Cause hearing, are not recognized under the ABA Standards.
ODC cited the need to educate Respondent, the publican to protect confidence inthe
profession as objectives to be served by a public reprimand. Hearing page 90.

 

 

 

Respondent found it “personally offensive to me” that ODC cited his lack
“Thave repeatedly apologized to [Ms. Aaronson}... am very disappointed in
‘myself over what happened. I think that if that statement isnot taken as remorse then
1'm going to pu itright out there, that is remorse. I can believe that et this happen.”
Hearing page 91. “I sincerely hope that none of you...ever have to deal withthe things
‘that Ihave had o deal with in the last 10 yeas, [redacted]. I'm sory. I think ifany of
‘you were in tis situation you would have [found] it very dificult to keep track of certain
things.” Hearing page 92, “I think Ms. Aaronson has overstepped her bounds by saying
‘that Ihave a lack of remorse for this or that I somehow knowingly intentionally decided
‘to thumb my nose at the system.” Hearing page 93

 

of remorse:

8
B, The Board’s Analysis

‘The Board considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
(1991 & Supp. 1992), (the “ABA Standards"), applying the four factors to be applied
regarding lawyer misconduct: the ethical duties violated by the lawyer; the lawyers"
‘mental state; the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and the
existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

1. Duties Violated bv Respondent

‘The Board finds that Respondent's violations of Rules 3.4 (c) (knowingly
disobeying an obligation under the rules ofa tribunal), 8.4(¢) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and two instances of 84(4)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), are of duties owed to
the legal system and to the profession.

2. Respondent's Mental State

‘The Board finds that Respondent's mental state was “knowing” with
respect to () his failure to respond to communications from the CLE Commission and
fling to complete the CLE, and (ii) by making false certifications on his 2013 Annual
Registration Statement.

Even putting aside Respondent's many attempts to shift blame or offer
reasons why it would be reasonable for him to “just plain forget,” it is undisputed that he
failed to finish his CLE by the end of 2011, or to report it as required early in 2012. His
{Rilure to provide updated addresses, both email and postal, where he would have
received communications from the CLE Commission, was entirely his own

[Respondent blamed his wife freely on the record, both a his deposition
and atthe hearing, for his failure to update his addresses as required by the Supreme
Cour:

“Thad my wife step in to help me get everything squared away. We were both
spread alittle too thin, So one ofthe things Ihad asked her to do was get my
‘address changed with all my various bars. When I got the [September 19, 2012
letter) I asked her to find out what my CLE situation was. ... I remember she
‘tied to call or Lkept bugging her... Iwas bugging her to take care of some stuff

0
‘Because what happened was I started leaming that things hadn't gotten done the
right way. And I don’t mean to throw my wife under the bus. really don't.
done between

 

her ~ and, you know, it just wasn't
the two of us.” Exhibit A, Deposition pages 9-12.
Regarding hs failure to notify the Delaware Supreme Cour of a change of frm
sudaress: “My wife was helping me, Thad asked hero take cre ofthat, In my
<iseussions wit her she claims tht she did do that, bt, apparently, again, id
‘not propely supervise her in that, so apparently it was not changed.” Hearing
age 9.

 

 

In any case, Respondent admits he knew by his August 23, 2012
‘conversation with Ms. Schwartz of ODC that he was deficient in his CLE and thatthe
CLE Commission, lacking a response to its several notifications to Respondent, had
referred the case to ODC. Despite this knowledge, Respondent did not complete his
CLE requirements until at leat eight months later - April 30,2013, or May 15, 2013, the
date ofthe CLE Certificate of Completion.

Respondent did nothing to respond after his August 23, 2012 conversation
‘with Ms, Schwartz; and made no response to her September 19, 2012 letter, in which she
‘reminded him of his ethical obligation under Rule 8.1 (b) to respond to ODC’s demand
for information. He made no response to Ms. Aaronson’s October 26, 2012 letter,
notifying him of a formal investigation into his conduct.

‘Nearly three months after he admits he was contacted by ODC (August
2012), and after ODC's October 26 and November 15, 2012 letters, after his case was
scheduled for presentation to the PRC, Respondent contacted ODC by telephone,
indicating he would contact the CLE Commission and establish make-up plan.

‘Although he did contact the CLE Commission on December 6, 2012, and
promised Ms. Millar that he would complete his missing CLE by December 31, 2012, he
id not do so, nor did he contact her or ODC wien he failed to complete the plan as
promised, Respondent explained: “Seriously, it was one of many things that I, you

  

‘know, was unable to accomplish because I was going in too many directions.” Exhibit A,
Deposition page 30.

a
[Regarding the requirement that he submit 2013 Annul Registration
Statement, the Respondent, as a member of the Bar, is aware that an annual filing is
required. Respondent failed to fle his registration on time.
Ms. Howard of the Supreme Court mailed the March 12, 2013 Rule to
‘Show Cause, compelling his March 27 appearance, to Respondent's home address.
Previously Respondent complained that ODC had mailed documents to the 2200 Eastern
Avenue work address he provided the ODC himself “(It's on the record with the
Delaware bar as to what the Delaware Supreme Court is as to what my home addres is.
| mean, if you are not geting responses for something, you could just have sent them
tome.” Exhibit A, Deposition pages 51-52.
[Respondent admitted he had the Rule to Show Cause fo
hhe contacted Ms, Howard of the Court:
“Lwas just looking through the mail and found it. But I defintely hadi, 1
definitely got it before the weekend {prior to contacting Ms. Howard] because it

 

‘number of days before

was on my mind... [remember, saying I've got to take care ofthis. I've got to
‘take care of this, And all (of a] sudden the 27° was upon me and I realized that I
hadn't done it yet... [I]t was one of those things where it caught up with me.
‘And sll [of a) sudden I realize it was on my to-do list and I hadn't done it.”
Exhibit A, Deposition pages 45-46.
In discussing his misrepresentation on the Annual Registration,
Respondent seid, “Had I really paid attention { woulda’t have answered it that way. Can
consider that a clerical mistake, checking the wrong box? No, [really can't. I mean T
‘would love to sit here and argue thet it was and I'm not. What I am saying is that tothe
extent that it is negligent, its the lowest form of negligence. It is not paying attention to
‘What I was doing, because I was rushing.” Hearing page 80.

Respondent noted litany of reasons why he “did not pay attention to this the way
should have":
“Did I make alot of mistakes? Yes. But there were things going on in my life.
[Redacted]. None of this is intentional. ... I would never intentionally do
anything to mislead a bar, particularly this one.” Exhibit A, Deposition pages S2-
35,

2
Despite his protestations, however, Respondent had actual knowledge of
the pitfalls of failing to update his addresses, and withthe deadlines for Annual
Registration: He failed to complete his 2005 Annuel Registration, and the Court issued a
Rule to Show Cause compelling his appearance. When he failed to appear, Respondent
‘was suspended asa member ofthe Bar. Exhibit K2.

Ittook Respondent nearly four years to apply for reinstatement. In 2008,
Respondent gave as reasons for his failures [redacted his former employer's failure to
forward his mail on a timely basis (thus allegedly missing both the Annual Registration
‘materials and the Rule to Show Cause, mailed tothe address on record, until after
suspension; [redacted]; his dealing with “multiple difficult situations at once.” Exhibit
Ka,

 

‘Thus, Respondent knew from hs 2005 suspension and 2009 reinstatement
that he needed to update addresses in order to ensure ecept of communications from the
Cour, and that he had to file timely Annual Registration statement or face @ Rule to
Show Cause,

Respondent claims he did not pick up his mal this office and thus did
nothave ODC's February or March correspondence offering hima private admonition or
cnclosing the terms of ODC's petition. When he certified that “there are no charges
pending or thestened against me before any court, the Bord on Professional
Responsibility, or any
respecting my conduct which would result inthe filing of charges or disciplinary action
against me," Exhibit J, he was, in fact, aware that

lar disciplinary agency” and “I do not know of any facts

 

‘© The CLE Commission referred his noncompliance to ODC;

‘© ODC, after repeated attempts to contact im, had prepared a case for presentation
to the PRC in the fall of 2012 for Respondent's failure to complete his 2011 CLE,
‘and that the ODC also cited his continued refusal to comply with ODC's
requests;

‘© Respondent had gotten a temporary reprieve by a promise to complete his CLE by
December 31, 2012; and

‘+ Respondent had not completed the CLE (and thus, was stil deficient in the eyes
‘of both ODC and the CLE Commission).

2
Given these facts, Respondent's misrepresentation onthe Annual
Registration certification was “knowing.”

‘Injury Caused by Respondent's Misconduct

‘There was no evidence of injury or potential injury toa client inthis case
Fellue to complete CLE requirements failure to cooperate with ODC, and false
statements on an Annual Registration can cause pote
legal system.

 

 

ial harm tothe integrity ofthe

Respondent's misconduct has been established. Prior to considerat

 

of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a public reprimand appears appropriate, under
[ABA Standard 7.3: “Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently
engages in conduct that is a violation ofa duty owed as a professional, and causes injury
or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.”

4, Ageravating and Mit

1. Aggravating Factors

‘Brio disciplinary offenses,. There is no evidence ofa prior disciplinary offense.

». Dishonest or selfish motive. Respondent admitted making a false certfieation on
hhis 2013 Annual Registration statement.

, Patter of misconduct. Respondent's continued failure to comply with Court
Rules, such as failing to file timely Annual Registration, and his repeatedly
ignoring directions and requests of ODC and the CLE Commission demonstrate a
patter of misconduct.

<4. Multiple offenses, Respondent failed to comply with 2011 CLE requirements;
disregarded numerous letters and requests from ODC and the CLE Commissir

led to complete his 2013 Annual Registration on time; and made a false
certification when he finally did file it
e it ofthe discipli

comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, Respondent's repested

instances of ignoring ODC’s and the CLE Commission's directions, his failure to

comply with CLE requirements from the time they were to be completed

 

 

2
(December 2011) until he finished them (May 2013), and his failure to complete
his Annual Registration, then fling a false certification, ae the basis for this

the disciplinary process. Respondent, both verbally and in writing, told ODC and
the Clerc of the Court that be ha suffered two strokes, when he has never been
diagnosed with stroke and never even been physically examined by the one
nurse practitioner he cited as having told him he likely hed strokes.

1, Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, Respondent continued to
‘tivialize his noncooperation with ODC his lengthy delay in completion of his
CCLE requirements, and hs false statement on his 2013 Registration: “I don't
think for example, that my behavior is really any diferent than [ODC's}. I sent
[Ms. Aaronson] an e-mail nt too long ago and it took her a coupe of days for
her paralegal to respond to me.” Hearing page 71. “(he issue is one of strictly
to the legal system and isa minimal situation." Hearing page 73. “My ..ack of|
response tothe disciplinary process occurred really over a two-month period as
‘opposed tothe much more extended period that Ms. Aaronson would like to have
you belive..." Hearing page 75. “T]he idea that Ilackremors...itis
personally offensive to me. ...{W]hen Ihave repeatedly apologized to [Ms
Aaronson)... Lam very disappointed in myself over what happened. think that
ifthat statement is not taken as emorse then I'm going to pu it right out there,
that is remorse. Ian’t believe that Let this happen.” Hearing page 91.

1. Vulnerability of victim, This factor does no apply.

i. Substansal experience in the practice of law.. Respondent and ODC agree
Respondent has substantial experience in the law. He wes admitted to the
Delaware Bar in 1991 and has been admitted in multiple jurisdictions.

4 Indifference to making restitution, This factor doesnot apply.

, Ilegal conduct, including that involving the use of contolled substances. This
factor does not opply.

2. Mitigating Factors

   

 

 

25
1. Absence of prior disciplinary record, The fact that Respondent has no prior
lisciplinary record isa mitigating factor inthis ease,

'. Absence of dishonest or selfish motive, Thi tigatng factor.

«©. Personal or emotional problems. Respondent cited « number of “personal
problems” in his testimony [redacted]. However, a number ofthese issues are
years old and cited previously by Respondent in his 2009 plea fr reinstatement.
His brief illnesses from December 18-24, 2012 and on January 28, 2013, and
[redacted], do not account for Respondent’ recaletrance from December 2011,
‘when his CLE should have been completed, until December 18,2012, when he
became ill, and indeed, do not account for is noncompliance from February 1,
2013, through May 15, 2013, when he completed his CLE, and his false
centificetion when he filed his 2013 Annual Registration Statement on March 27,
2013.

4, Timely good faith effort to make restitution oro retify consequences of
‘misconduct. This factor doesnot aly.

e fre disclosure to di 3 coopeati
‘proceedings. This factor doesnot apply. Respondent was not cooperative during
the investigation.

f. Inexperience in the practice of law. This factor does not epply.

‘. Character or reputation, There was no evidence to support tis factor.

4. Physical or mental disability or impairment. Respondent denies any mental
disability or impairment, and eny evidence of alleged physical illness was fora

 

not a

 

minimal time petiod during the extensive pesiod of noncompliance. Ths, itis not
a mitigating fctor here.

i, Delay in disciplinary proceedings. This factor doesnot apply.

4. Interim Rehebilitation, This factor doesnot apply.

Imposition of other penalties or sanctions, This factor des not apply

1. Remorse. The Board doesnot find this factor to apply hee.

1m, Remoteness of prir offenses, This factor doesnot apply.

5, Delaware Precedent

26
‘The Delaware Supreme Court's precedent supports a public reprimand.

‘The respondent in McDonald failed to timely ile a CLE affidavit and
failed to respond to several letters from ODC. The respondent in that ease, who had
been issued a private admonition for the same violation in 1992, and was late in filin
‘other years as well, was issued a public reprimand “because [he] has received a prior
‘admonition for similar misconduct inthe past, and because he filed to respond to
notices and correspondence from the ODC.”

While Respondent did not receive a prior admonition for CLE
deficiencies, he filed to respond to notices and correspondence from ODC and the CLE.
‘Commission, and there are two Separate offenses here: the failure to complete his CLE
forthe period ending December 31, 2011, andthe false statement on his 2013 Annual
Registration Statement.

‘The respondent in Doughty was given a public reprimand, in part for
negligent failure to maintain books and records, and in part for falsely certifying thatthe
‘books and records were being maintained, and tax obligations met, in compliance with
the law. The Court held: “Moreover, as a question of frst impression, we hold that a
‘negligent misrepresentation also may form the basis for a charge of misconduct under
the literal terms of DLRPC Rule 8.4(c). In Doughty's case, we find clear and convincing

 

 

evidence in the record that Doughty's negligent misrepresentations to the Court in his
‘Annual Registration Statements violated both DLRPC Rule 8.4(c) and DLRPC Rule
8.4(@)” 832 4.24 at 735

‘Since the respondent was the only lawyer in his firm to practice in
Delaware the Court said it was his responsibility to ensure those in charge ofthe firm's
bookkeeping understood Delaware's requirements, and to satisfy himself thatthe firm
‘was in compliance, “The record reflects that Doughty made litle effort in this regard.”
1

 

While Respondent correctly points out that Doughty involved books and
records and a potential harm to clients, Respondent's conduct inthe case at issue
includes ~in addition to his misrepresentation on his Annual Registration statement
his failure to complete CLE, and his repeated ft
ope.

 

 

xe to respond to communications from

 
In Private Admonition 399, a respondent filed to file two years” Annual
[Registration statements; and failed to fle a CLE transcript and make-up plan for a
reporting period. The respondent did not respond to correspondence fom the CLE
commission and ODC, but agreed to seek sistance from a mental health professional,
as respondent's depression caused him to ignore pressure situations. Respondent, who
‘was in continuing treatment, acknowledged to the Board hs illness, apologized, and
‘outlined is efforts to change his behaviors. ODC ultimately did not oppose a private
‘admonition with conditions, based on Respondent's remorse. The Board found that the
respondent's medical condition explained but did not excuse his conduct, but the
‘mitigating factors in the case outweighed the aggravating ones, enough to support a

 

   

private admonition.

Citing numerous instances where private admonitions were given atthe
PRC level for fling to comply with CLE Commission rules and failure to cooperate
the Commission oF ODC, the Board in Private Admonition 399 said:

In considering whether to recommend a private or public sanction, the
decision in this case may be a close one. Had the Respondent properly
reported and responded to the Lawyer's Fund and the CLE Commission,
the ODC would not have needed to become involved inthe first instance.
Had the Respondent shown a better response tothe ODC, formal charges
‘might not have been filed. Even after charges were brought, had
Respondent not been averse to accepting the private admonition originally
offered by the ODC, this matter would not have reached the Board level
In other words, Respondent slone is responsible for matters being in the!
present procedural context. That coupled with his failure to respond to the
disciplinary process would warrant a public reprimand.

 

 

However, the Board is satisfied withthe sincerity ofthe Respondent's
stated remorse and apology to the Board and the ODC. Given that
apology and the ODC's willingness to roll back its recommendation for
public reprimand and to accept a private admonition, the Board
recommends the Respondent be sanctioned with a private admonition

 

‘Nevertheless, the Board does not believe that a private admonition
sanction by itself is sufficient under the circumstances of this case. The
Board does have the authority to recommend conditions.

Private Admonition 399 Board Report pages 15-16

‘The Board recommended “prophylactic sanctions,” not as a punishment,
but to assure the respondent's continued mental health treatment and fulfillment of his
obligations to the Court and its agencies, and to avoid harm tothe public. The conditions
included two years’ probation under a practice monitor acceptable to ODC; continued
psychological counseling, with no missed appointments, continued compliance with
‘taking prescribed medications; waiver ofthe doctor/patient privilege to allow
respondent's therapist to report to the practice monitor; respondents arranging to have all
work documents sent to an address where he would receive them; timely filing ofall
required reports; and payment of ODC costs. Any noncompliance with the conditions
‘would result ina disciplinary action “with any future sanction almost certainly being

publ

 

innature,” Page 18.

‘This cas i distinguishable from Private Admonition 399, in thatthe
‘Board isnot satisfied that Respondent is remorseful, and ODC does not agree that a
private admonition is acceptable. Further, the aggravating factors in the present case
‘outweigh the mitigating factors, as opposed tothe findings in Private Admonition 399.

‘While not requising them as conditions in its recommendation for
sanction, the Board makes two suggestions, given Respondents conduct and testimony in
these proceedings.

Firs, the Board recommends that Respondent's appli
Contficate of Inactive Status be granted. Respondent was on inactive status from 1999 to
2005, when he was administratively suspended for failure to file his 2005 Annual
Registration. He was restored to active status following his 2009 petition for
reinstatement.

 

n fora

 

 

Dring the course ofthese proceedings, Respondent testified:
“1 was administratively suspended in D.C. (redacted). I've spoken to somebody at
‘the D.C. bar about, you know, what to do to get reinstated. [Redacted].”

@ 80 you currently are in good standing in all the other.jurisdictions in which
‘you are admitted except for D.C.?

A:"Idon'tknow, Tassume, Idon’t know. I don't know where I stand with New
Jersey [Respondent did not know if New Jersey was aware of his new mailing

»
addresses]. ... {In Pennsylvania I was inactive. I went inactive along time ago
in Pennsylvania, And I had started the process of becoming active again. But
‘when the whole thing with Chartwell started, I just stopped. So Ihave no idea
‘where I stand with them.” Exhibit A, Deposition pages 24-25.

“Redacted.” Hearing page 42

“1 don’t want to go back to private practice for sure. [Redacted]. And all of the
‘other things that are going on.” Exhibit A, Deposition page 55.
“Redacted]."Exhibit A, Deposition pages 59-60.

“Lknow Ms. Aaronson ata level believes that it is because I wanted to be on

 

Inactive status, which I do.” Hearing page 50.

 

Based on these statements, if Respondent's request for inactive status is
denied and Respondent continues on active status, the Board would want to consider
‘what additional sanctions, if any, would be appropriate. See, e.g. Private Adimonition 399
(Conditioning private admonition on two-year probationary period under the supervision
‘of a practice monitor from either the Lawyer's Assistance Committe or such other

attorney who is willing to serve and who is acceptable to ODC)..
‘Second, the Board recommends that Respondent (redacted).
‘Based on the Board’s analysis ofthe facts and the law, the Board

believes that a public reprimand is appropriate, with the condition that Respondent
pay both the CLE Commission late fees and ODC costs.

20
Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Susan H. Kirk-Ryan, Esquire, Panel Chair

 

©. Velle, Esquire

 

a