Case Title: Matter of Estep

Citation: 

Docket Number: 647, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:  
§  
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 647, 2006 
RALPH V. ESTEP, 
 
§  
 
Respondent.  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  August 7, 2007 
 
 
 
       Decided:  August 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and 
RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
 
Contempt 
Proceeding. 
 
Upon 
the 
Findings 
of 
Fact 
and 
Recommendations For Sanctions from the Board on Unauthorized Practice 
of Law.  Sanctions Imposed.   
 
 
William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esquire, Oberly, Jennings & Rhodunda, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for the Respondent. 
 
 
Patricia B. Schwartz, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
Wilmington, Delaware. 
 
 
Per Curiam: 
 
2
 
The Respondent, Ralph V. Estep, is a public accountant with an office 
in Wilmington, Delaware.  The Respondent is not authorized to practice law 
in Delaware or any other jurisdiction.  On October 30, 2006, this Court 
issued an order directing that the Respondent cease and desist the 
unauthorized practice of law (“Cease and Desist Order”).   
 
On December 11, 2006, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) 
filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause in this Court, alleging that the 
Respondent was in violation of the Cease and Desist Order.1  On February 
21, 2007, we referred this matter to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law (“Board”) to make findings of fact and recommendations concerning 
the contemptuous conduct alleged in ODC’s petition.2  On April 10, 2007, 
the Board conducted an evidentiary hearing during which it heard testimony 
from various witnesses and accepted documentary evidence.   
 
On May 25, 2007, the Board filed its Findings of Fact and 
Recommendations for Sanctions.  The Board found in the Respondent’s 
favor on Counts I and XI of the Amended Petition.  Regarding the remaining 
nine counts in the Amended Petition, the Board found that the Respondent’s 
                                          
 
1 Prior to filing, ODC’s Petition was approved by the Board’s Chairman as required by 
the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (“Board Rules”).  See Bd. R. 19. 
2 Id.  We also permitted ODC to amend its original petition.    On February 28, 2007, 
ODC filed an Amended Petition for Rule to Show Cause (“Amended Petition”).  The 
Respondent answered the Amended Petition on March 9, 2007.   
 
3
conduct was contemptuous and a “blatant attempt” to avoid this Court’s 
Cease and Desist Order.  The Board recommends that the Respondent 
disgorge all fees associated with his contemptuous activities.   
 
Both the Respondent and ODC have filed objections to the Board’s 
factual findings and recommendations.  This Court has concluded that all of 
the objections to the Board’s factual findings are without merit.  This Court 
has carefully considered the Board’s non-binding recommendations on the 
issue of sanctions.  We have concluded that the appropriate sanctions are 
disgorgement of fees earned by the Respondent after the entry of the Cease 
and Desist Order and a $2000 fine for each of the nine counts of the 
Amended Petition found to have constituted a contempt of the Cease and 
Desist Order. 
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 
RESPONDENT’S VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE 
 
 
On January 25, 2006, the ODC filed a petition with the Board alleging 
that the Respondent was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  
Specifically, ODC alleged the Respondent was:  (1) acting in a 
representative capacity in a Delaware legal tribunal or governmental agency; 
(b) giving legal advice on matters relating to Delaware law; (c) drafting legal 
documents; and (d) holding himself out as authorized to practice law in 
Delaware.  Board Rule 14 provides that “any time after a matter is initially 
 
4
docketed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the respondent may 
voluntarily offer an assurance that the respondent shall not engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law in the State of Delaware.”3  On June 6, 2006, 
ODC and the Respondent appeared before the Board and jointly submitted a 
written settlement agreement captioned “Admitted Facts and Admissions of 
Conduct Constituting the Unauthorized Practice of Law” (“Admissions”).   
In the Admissions, the Respondent agreed that the “drafting of wills 
and trusts by a non-lawyer who is not authorized to practice law by the 
Delaware Supreme Court constitutes the unauthorized practice of law . . .”  
The Respondent further agreed that “acting in a representative capacity in 
the Register of Wills, giving legal advice on matters relating to Delaware 
estate law, and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills by a 
non-lawyer each constitutes the unauthorized practice of law . . .”  The 
Respondent agreed that he would “not draft wills and trusts, act in a 
representative capacity in the Register of Wills, give legal advice on matters 
relating to Delaware estate law, or draft legal documents for use in the 
Register of Wills and he would not advertise legal services related to ‘wills,’ 
‘trusts,’ ‘estate,’ ‘probate,’ ‘estate administration,’ and ‘estate and probate 
                                          
 
3 Bd. R. 14. 
 
5
services’ as services provided by his firm in any manner including print ads, 
yellow pages, billboards, on his letterhead, or elsewhere.” 
 
On July 31, 2006, the Board submitted its acceptance of the 
Respondent’s Admissions, voluntary assurances and also submitted a 
proposed consent decree to this Court.  We approved the Respondent’s 
voluntary compliance agreement and entered the Cease and Desist Order as 
a consent degree.  Following the entry of this Court’s Cease and Desist 
Order, the Court of Chancery appointed Peter S. Gordon, Esquire, as 
receiver of the Respondent’s unauthorized law practice.4   
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION 
 
This Court has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over matters 
involving the legal profession and the practice of law in the State of 
Delaware.5  Pursuant to that authority, this Court established the Board on 
the Unauthorized Practice of Law.6  This Court designated the ODC to 
                                          
 
4 At that time, Mr. Gordon seized 283 files from the Respondent.  In response, the 
Respondent drafted and mailed a letter to his clients dated November 13, 2006.  The 
letter explained the Respondent’s view of the actions and urged his clients to obtain their 
files. 
5 Delaware Optometric Corporation v. Sherwood, 128 A.2d 812 (Del. 1957); In re A 
Member of the Bar, 257 A.2d 382 (Del. 1969); Del. Const. art. IV, § 1.  See Supr. Ct. R. 
86(c)(6). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 86. 
 
6
evaluate, investigate and prosecute all matters relating to the unauthorized 
practice of law.7 
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
 
The Rules of the Board delineate the structure and procedures for a 
comprehensive regulatory system intended to protect the public from 
occurrences of the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Delaware.  
Board Rule 14 provides that this Court’s entry of an order approving the 
Respondent’s voluntary assurance agreement shall be enforceable through 
contempt proceedings.  Board Rule 19 authorizes the ODC to investigate 
any alleged violations of this Court’s orders and to petition this Court for a 
rule to show cause why the Respondent should not be held in contempt.  In 
accordance with Board Rule 19, we directed the Board to conduct an 
evidentiary hearing with respect to the Amended Petition filed by ODC and 
to submit a report with its factual findings and recommendations.   
UNAUTHORIZED LAW PRACTICE 
 
The unauthorized practice of law is prohibited so that members of the 
public will receive legal representation only from a person who has 
demonstrated his or her competence to practice law by passing the bar 
                                          
 
7 Supr. Ct. R. 86.  See also Board Rules 4, 5 6 and 19.  See also Supr. Ct. R. 64. 
 
7
examination,8 as well as the character and fitness examination,9 and who is 
subject to the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Responsibility.  As 
this Court explained fifty years ago: 
 
The profession thus established arose out of a public 
necessity for the exclusion from the practice of law of 
unqualified persons.  The attorney thus became an officer of the 
court and an important adjunct to the administration of justice. 
The profession from the very start was affected with a public 
interest and was created for the protection of the public. 
 
 
Originally, anyone could practice law, but for the 
protection of the public it was found necessary to circumscribe 
that right.  The advance of civilization and its material things 
has done nothing to change that fundamental fact.  The 
existence of the legal profession is continued for the assistance 
of the public under limitations imposed by the court. Violations 
of those limitations are punished by the court through its 
process of citation for contempt. 
 
 
The admission of attorneys to practice, and the exclusion 
of unauthorized persons from practice lie within the province of 
this court.  A violation of this court’s exclusive right to license 
attorneys at law by presuming to practice law without such 
license is a contempt of its authority and punishable as such.10 
 
The issue of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law 
frequently arises in this and other jurisdictions in the context of wills, trusts, 
and estate planning.11  In this case, it is unnecessary for this Court to 
                                          
 
8 Supr. Ct. R. 52(a)(7). 
9 Supr. Ct. R. 52(a)(1). 
10 Delaware Optometric Corporation v. Sherwood, 128 A.2d 812 (Del. 1957).  See also 
Delaware State Bar Ass’n v. Alexander, 386 A.2d 652 (Del. 1978). 
11 See, e.g., Dayton Bar Assn. v. Addison, 837 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio, 2005); State ex rel. 
Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. Northouse, 848 N.E.2d 668 (Ind., 2006).  See also Jay M. 
 
8
promulgate a comprehensive definition of the practice of law in those 
subject areas. 
 
Our Cease and Desist Order was a consent decree entered as the result 
of a voluntary agreement between the Respondent and the ODC that was 
approved by the Board.  In that agreement, the Respondent defined what 
conduct by him would constitute the unauthorized practice of law and 
represented to this Court that he would not engage in any of those defined 
prohibited activities.  Accordingly, the issue is whether the Respondent 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as defined and agreed to by him 
in his Admissions and voluntary assurances to this Court that constituted the 
basis for the Cease and Desist Order. 
BOARD’S FACTUAL FINDINGS12 
The Board’s findings of fact and recommendations are as follows: 
(1)  Count I of the Amended Petition - Giving Legal Advice/Impugning 
the Integrity and Validity of Court Orders 
 
 
Count I of the Amended Petition avers that Respondent was in 
contempt of the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice to his clients 
in his letter of November 13, 2006.  ODC further claims that this letter 
                                                                                                                             
 
Zitter, Annotation, Drafting of Will or Other Estate Planning Activities as Illegal or 
Unauthorized Practice of Law, 25 A.L.R.6th, 323 (2007). 
12 These factual findings are taken verbatim from the Board’s report.  Findings of Fact 
and Recommendations for Sanctions dated May 25, 2007.   
 
9
impugned the integrity and validity of Orders issued by the Delaware 
Supreme Court and the New Castle County Court of Chancery.13  
Respondent denies that his letter contains legal advice or that it impugned 
the Supreme Court’s integrity. 
  
It cannot be gainsaid that Respondent’s letter was ill-advised, 
misleading and spiteful.  Despite its offensive  tone and distasteful wording, 
however, the Board did not find by clear and convincing evidence that 
Respondent’s letter impugns the Supreme Court’s integrity or the validity of 
the Cease and Desist Order.   
 
Although Respondent's letter includes several passages that one could 
construe as rendering legal advice, there was no testimony presented by 
ODC that any of Respondent's clients construed the letter as giving legal 
advice or that they relied on the letter for this purpose. Absent such 
testimony, the Board does not find clear and convincing evidence that 
Respondent rendered legal advice in his letter. 
 
For these reasons, the Board finds that ODC fails to meet its burden of 
proof with respect to Count I of the Amended Petition. 
                                          
 
13 The Board makes no findings of fact relating to ODC’s claim that Respondent’s letter 
was contemptuous of the Chancery Court Order of November 9, 2006. This issue is 
beyond the powers conferred on the Board by Supreme Court Rule 86(c). This issue does 
not pertain to allegations of the unauthorized practice of law or the underlying Cease and 
Desist Order. 
 
10
(2) Counts II, III, IV and Count VI of the Amended Petition - Giving 
Legal Advice on Estate Law/ Drafting of Wills/Trusts/Powers of 
Attorney/Healthcare Directives/Deeds 
 
 
Count II of the Amended Petition alleges that Respondent violated the 
Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate 
law and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills for Easter 
Burch (“Burch”).  
 
Count III alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order 
by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and drafting legal 
documents for use in the Register of Wills for Yolanda and William Welsh 
(“Welsh”).  
 
Count IV alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order 
by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and drafting legal 
documents for use in the Register of Wills for Bruce Abbott (“Abbott”).  
 
Count VI alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order 
by rendering legal advice relating to estate law and drafting legal documents 
for use in the Register of Wills for Vivienne Titus (“Titus”). 
 
Respondent admits meeting with those named individuals to discuss 
estate planning but denies that he drafted any legal documents or that he 
rendered any legal advice.    
 
11
 
As explained below, Respondent’s routine business practice was 
essentially the same each time he met with clients to discuss estate planning. 
As such, unless otherwise noted, the Board’s findings of fact are identical 
for Counts II, III, IV and VI of the Amended Petition.   
 
Respondent met with Burch and her granddaughter, Susan Cooper 
(“Cooper”), on November 3, 2006 to discuss estate planning.   This  
consultation was typical of Respondent's meetings with other estate planning 
clients.  For example, Cooper took Burch to Respondent to draft a will. 
Cooper, her grandmother, Respondent and a “tall young lady” from 
Respondent’s office were the only people present during the initial meeting.  
No Delaware lawyer was present.  After interviewing Burch and taking 
detailed notes during this meeting, Respondent provided his notes to 
Leonard Kingsley (“Kingsley”) an attorney admitted in Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey.  Kingsley, who is not admitted to practice law in Delaware, 
then drafted a power of attorney, will and irrevocable trust for Burch as 
directed by Respondent.  Respondent employed largely the same procedure 
regarding his estate planning work for Welsh, Abbott and Titus. 
 
Kingsley maintains an office in West Chester, Pennsylvania. As part 
of his practice, he claimed to help Respondent with his legal problems, 
including counseling Respondent in terms of how to “limit the scope of 
 
12
inquiries from various branches of the Delaware government.”  Respondent 
pays Kingsley $8,000.00 per month to draft legal documents based on the 
notes Respondent generates as a result of his initial meetings with clients.  
Respondent maintains a master file of form documents for wills, trusts, 
healthcare directive and powers of attorney and Kingsley routinely used 
these forms to draft the legal documents as directed by Respondent.  When 
Kingsley drafted the documents, he did so either at his home in Wilmington, 
Delaware or at his West Chester, Pennsylvania office.  
 
The Board notes with interest that prior to November of 2006, 
Kingsley was actually an employee of Respondent’s accounting firm, but 
ostensibly terminated his employment for fear of prosecution by ODC. 
When Kingsley was Respondent’s employee, he performed these same 
services for Respondent.   
 
In addition to drafting estate planning documents, Kingsley also 
drafted deeds transferring real estate for Respondent's clients.  Kingsley 
always received instructions from Respondent as to what documents to draft.  
After Kingsley prepared the legal documents, he returned them 
electronically to Respondent’s office.  With only two exceptions, Kingsley 
 
13
never met with Respondent's clients.14  The documents were then forwarded 
to Thomas McCracken, Esquire (“McCracken”), a member of the Delaware 
Bar. Kingsley never met with McCracken to discuss the documents. 
 
  Respondent and McCracken had a business agreement that was 
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding.  Respondent testified 
that McCracken would draft documents, meet with clients and answer 
questions about the documents.  But, Respondent’s testimony on this point 
was directly contradicted by Kingsley and McCracken, both of whom 
testified that Kingsley, not McCracken, drafted the legal documents based 
on Respondent’s instructions. The Board specifically found that Kingsley 
did the drafting, not McCracken.  
 
McCracken received the draft legal documents electronically from 
Respondent but, unlike Kingsley, he did not receive Respondent’s personal 
notes.  McCracken played no role in determining what estate planning 
documents were prepared for Respondent’s clients.  Indeed, it is 
uncontroverted that none of Respondent's clients ever met McCracken 
before executing their legal documents.  Their first introduction to their own 
lawyer was only moments before these documents were signed.  
                                          
 
14 Kingsley met with Titus once to answer a tax question.  Kingsley was also present once 
during a meeting between Welsh and Respondent. 
 
14
 
The Board found that Respondent’s clients were intentionally misled 
about McCracken’s role. When Respondent and McCracken met with clients 
to execute legal documents, the clients were presented a letter prepared by 
Respondent, but printed on McCracken's letterhead and signed by 
McCracken.  This letter falsely informed the clients that McCracken 
“prepared the legal documents” to carry out the client’s wishes. It also 
falsely stated that Respondent “and [McCracken] have decided that these 
documents will effectively carry out your intent from the estate and tax 
planning consultation you had with [Respondent]”.  Contrary to these 
representations, McCracken did not prepare the legal documents, nor did he 
form or express any opinions about whether the legal documents effectively 
carried out the client’s intent. 
 
Similarly, ODC questioned McCracken about deeds that were 
prepared for Respondent’s clients.  McCracken admits he did not prepare the 
deeds but did review them.  The deeds falsely state they were prepared by 
McCracken.  The Board finds that the deeds were prepared by Kingsley at 
Respondent's direction.    
 
Welsh's consultation with Respondent was strikingly similar.  Welsh 
contacted Respondent because he saw his advertisement in the “‘Lawyers’ 
section in the yellow pages”.  On November 6, 2006, at the initial meeting 
 
15
with Respondent, Welsh’s wife was not present, nor was McCracken.  
Welsh and his wife returned to Respondent’s office approximately one week 
later.  McCracken was present but said absolutely nothing when Welsh and 
his wife executed the legal documents.  All questions posed by Welsh were 
answered by Respondent.  After executing the documents, Welsh had 
concerns about the documents he executed, so he telephoned McCracken.15   
McCracken told Welsh that he would need to set up a meeting with 
Respondent to discuss his concerns.  Thereafter, Welsh testified he met with 
Respondent and “another lawyer, some guy from around the Philadelphia 
area.  He looked to me, he might have been Asian of some kind.”  The Board 
finds that Welsh is referring to Kingsley.  
  
The Board heard similar testimony from Titus’ daughter, Eileen 
Wolfe (“Wolfe”), who had accompanied her mother to meet with 
Respondent on October 23, 2006.  During this meeting, Respondent 
reviewed a will previously prepared by an attorney and rendered legal advice 
that the will “had to be redone, that there are things missing and it wasn’t 
written correctly”.  Wolfe, her sister, Titus, Respondent, and one of his 
secretaries were the only people present during the initial meeting.  Again, 
McCracken was not present. The only time Titus met McCracken was the 
                                          
 
15 Although McCracken claimed no memory of speaking with Welsh, the Board finds that 
Welsh did speak with McCracken. 
 
16
day the legal documents were executed, November 13, 2006.  That day, 
Respondent went through the legal documents page by page explaining them 
to Titus.  Thereafter, Titus signed the documents and McCracken was silent 
during this meeting. 
 
McCracken’s testimony corroborates Respondent’s business practice. 
McCracken was admitted to the Delaware bar in April of 2003.  He met 
Respondent when he responded to his advertisement in a local newspaper 
seeking a licensed Delaware attorney to assist him on legal matters on a part-
time basis.  McCracken explained that clients would make an appointment 
with Respondent’s office.  Respondent then emailed documents to 
McCracken for review.  If McCracken had corrections, he would email the 
corrections.  He never made any substantive changes to any of the legal 
documents.  Rather, his only changes were grammatical, spelling or 
punctuation.  If McCracken did not have corrections, he would notify 
Respondent’s office.  He also would later report to Respondent’s office 
where the documents were executed by Respondent’s clients.  
 
McCracken described his role as merely ensuring that the documents 
complied with Delaware law. He did not exercise any independent 
judgment, give any legal advice to the clients or make any effort to 
determine whether the documents were consonant with the client's wants or 
 
17
needs.  Indeed, as a Delaware lawyer, McCracken did not exercise any 
supervisory control or capacity over Respondent or Kingsley.  In terms of 
billing, invoices were prepared by Respondent’s office and a charge was 
placed on Respondent’s bill for the services purportedly rendered by 
McCracken.16 
 
Although not directly implicated in ODC's Amended Petition, Bernard 
J. Bialecki, Esquire’s (“Bialecki”) testimony was akin to McCracken’s.  
Bialecki is a Delaware lawyer who also met Respondent in response to his 
newspaper advertisement. Bialecki entered into a similar facilitating 
business arrangement with Respondent whereby he would review legal 
documents to determine compliance with Delaware law.  Bialecki also 
received legal documents electronically although he received them directly 
from Kingsley.  Unlike McCracken, Bialecki claims he, on occasion, 
substantively discussed the documents with Kingsley but did not receive 
Respondent’s notes.  Consequently, Bialecki’s only knowledge of the 
client’s wishes was what Kingsley communicated to him.  Bialecki also 
never met with any of Respondent’s clients before reviewing the documents.  
When the documents were executed, Bialecki was present but it was 
                                          
 
16 The Board finds that McCracken rendered no legal services whatsoever.  The Board 
further finds that Respondent accepted payment for McCracken's services but he never 
paid McCracken. 
 
18
Respondent who reviewed the documents with his clients.  Bialecki never 
explained any of the documents to the clients.  Bialecki was paid directly by 
Respondent and his fees were also collected in the same fashion as part of 
Respondent’s billing. 
 
 
In summary, the evidence relating to ODC’s allegations in Counts II, 
III, IV, and VI is largely uncontested.  In the Admissions, Respondent 
voluntarily, and with the benefit of counsel, agreed that the drafting of wills 
and trusts by a non-lawyer, not authorized to practice law by the Delaware 
Supreme Court, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent 
also admitted that he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
drafting wills and trusts and he agreed that he would not draft wills and 
trusts and other legal documents.  The Board finds by clear and convincing 
evidence that Respondent's conduct violated both the substance and spirit of 
the Admissions and the Cease and Desist Order.   
 
Respondent’s business arrangements with Kingsley and McCracken 
constitute a transparent, nefarious attempt to circumvent the Cease and 
Desist Order and continue with “business as usual”.  The Board found that 
Respondent interviewed Burch, Welsh, Abbott and Titus and rendered legal 
advice to each regarding what legal documents they needed as part of their 
estate planning.  Instead of drafting the legal documents himself, 
 
19
Respondent directed Kingsley to draft them for him.  While Respondent did 
not himself perform the drafting, this isolated fact is no defense, because 
Kingsley, a non-Delaware lawyer, did the drafting at Respondent's direction, 
using Respondent's forms, for Respondent's pecuniary benefit.  Respondent 
cannot avoid the terms of the Admissions and the Cease and Desist Order by 
concocting a contemptuous scheme whereby he directs a non-Delaware 
lawyer, as his agent, to draft legal documents in contravention of a Supreme 
Court Order. 
 
The Board further found that after the documents were prepared, 
Respondent met with the clients to explain the documents, thereby rendering 
legal advice on matters relating to Delaware estate law.  The only difference 
in Respondent’s post-Admissions conduct is that he now had a Delaware 
lawyer present to witness the execution of the legal documents.  A Delaware 
lawyer’s mere presence does not empower Respondent to engage in conduct 
otherwise prohibited by the Admissions.  This is particularly true 
considering the false representations made to Respondent's clients regarding 
McCracken's role in their estate planning.  McCracken abdicated his ethical 
obligations as an advocate and directly contributed to Respondent’s 
chicanery, thereby arming Respondent with a tepid scheme to avoid the 
Cease and Desist Order.  
 
20
 
As such, the Board found clear and convincing evidence that 
Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice 
relating to Delaware estate law and by drafting legal documents as alleged in 
Counts II, III, IV and VI. 
(3)  Counts V, VII, VIII, IX and X - Giving Legal Advice/Acting in  A 
Representative Capacity in the Register of Wills 
 
 
Count V alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by 
giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of 
Wills on behalf of Thomas McElhone ("McElhone"). 
 
Count VII alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by 
giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of 
Wills on behalf of D’June Hunt ("Hunt"). 
 
Count VIII alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by 
giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of 
Wills on behalf of Ann R. Fox ("Fox"). 
 
Count IX alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by 
giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of 
Wills on behalf of Christine T. Dillow ("Dillow"). 
 
Count X alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by 
giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of 
Wills on behalf of Betty Treml ("Treml"). 
 
21
 
With respect to these allegations, Respondent denies rendering legal 
advice as alleged, but admits preparing and mailing accountings to the 
Register of Wills as agent for McElhone, Hunt, Fox, Dillow, and Treml.  In 
essence, Respondent denies he was acting in a representative capacity while 
assisting the aforementioned personal representatives in the Register of 
Wills. In particular, Respondent argues that the Admissions merely prohibit 
him from serving as personal representative in the Register of Wills.  
 
The Board does not find this argument persuasive. In ¶12 of the 
Admissions, Respondent specifically agreed that he would not "act in a 
representative capacity in the Register of Wills, give legal advice on matters 
relating to Delaware estate law, or draft legal documents for use in the 
Register of Wills."  Contrary to Respondent's position, the Board found that 
this language is not limited to merely prohibiting him from acting as a 
personal representative.  That language is much broader, and proscribes 
Respondent from acting in "any" representative capacity.   
 
For each estate, the Board found that Respondent prepared and filed 
documents with the Register of Wills in violation of the Admissions.  
Moreover, Respondent prepared agent authorizations whereby his clients, as 
personal representatives of estates, appointed him as their "agent" before the 
Register of Wills.  It is beyond peradventure that if Respondent was acting 
 
22
as an agent, a fortiori, he was acting in a representative capacity in violation 
of the Cease and Desist Order. It defies logic for Respondent to suggest 
otherwise merely because he labeled himself an “agent” as opposed to some 
different title.  Based on the testimony and the documents admitted 
pertaining to these estates, the Board also found that Respondent rendered 
legal advice to the personal representatives in connection with the 
preparation and filing of these documents with the Register of Wills.  For 
example, in his billing statement regarding the Estate of Anna Jane Floyd, 
Respondent's entries clearly state that he advised his client that she did not 
need an attorney when in fact a legal question arose regarding a real estate 
settlement.  Instead, Respondent himself rendered legal advice to the client 
on what steps he believed the personal representative needed to take to clear 
up a title issue. 
 
Respondent claims that the preparation of an inventory or final 
accounting for filing in the Register of Wills is essentially accounting work.  
Therefore, Respondent claims, he filed no legal documents. The Board 
disagreed.  
 
To support his claim, Respondent presented testimony from Geoff 
Langdon (“Langdon”), the managing partner of Cover & Rossiter, a Public 
Accounting Firm in Wilmington, Delaware. Ironically, the Board found 
 
23
Langdon's testimony supportive of ODC's position.  In fact, Langdon's 
testimony established that Respondent’s business practices in these matters 
went well beyond normally accepted accounting practices.  Although 
Langdon testified that the preparation of an inventory and final accounting is 
largely “what accountants do”, he also conceded that in his twenty years of 
accounting, he could think of only one instance where an accountant in his 
office actually filed the inventory and final accounting with the Register of 
Wills.  Instead, Langdon testified, such filings are normally done by 
Delaware attorneys.17  The Board finds Langdon's testimony an accurate 
representation of accepted accounting practices in Delaware.  Consequently, 
by routinely preparing and filing inventories and final accountings, 
Respondent's conduct far exceeded the scope of accepted accounting 
practices in Delaware.   
 
More pointedly, regardless of what the practice is in Delaware, 
Respondent violated his agreement that he would not draft legal documents 
for filing with the Register of Wills. He further violated his agreement that 
he would not act in a representative capacity or give legal advice pertaining 
to probate matters.  The Board found clear and convincing evidence that 
                                          
 
17 Langdon's testimony on this point was confirmed by the testimony of Peter S. Gordon, 
Esq. 
 
24
Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order as alleged in Counts V, VII, 
VIII, IX and X. 
(4) Count XI of the Amended Petition- Advertising 
 
Count XI alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order 
by advertising services related to “‘wills,’ ‘trusts,’ ‘estate,’ ‘probate,’ ‘estate 
administration,’ and ‘estate and probate services.’”  In particular, 
Respondent ran an advertisement in the Sunday Bulletin of St. John The 
Beloved Parish from November 5, 2006 through February 25, 2007.   
 
As to this allegation, the Board found no violation.  The advertisement 
clearly identifies Respondent’s firm as “Public Accountants”.  All of the 
advertised services are offered in the context of "accounting".  Nothing in 
the advertisement can be reasonably construed as offering legal services.  
Respondent correctly notes that when compared to the advertisements of 
other accountants in the yellow pages and elsewhere, his advertisement is 
very similar.  The Admissions do not prevent Respondent from advertising 
accounting services. Consequently, the Board found no violation of the 
Cease and Desist Order relating to this particular advertisement. 
CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT ESTABLISHED 
 
The Board found that the Respondent violated the Cease and Desist 
Order by engaging in the conduct set forth in  Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, 
 
25
VII, IX and X of the Amended Petition but that the conduct alleged in 
Counts I and XI was not contemptuous.  The Board’s findings of fact are 
supported by clear and convincing evidence and the product of a logical 
deductive reasoning process.18  Accordingly, those factual findings by the 
Board are accepted by this Court and will constitute the basis for imposing 
sanctions upon the Respondent.   
SANCTIONS IMPOSED 
 
The Court holds the Respondent in contempt for violating the Cease 
and Desist Order, by engaging in the conduct set forth in Counts II-X of the 
Amended Petition.  The Respondent is ordered to disgorge all fees received 
for legal services rendered following the entry of the Cease and Desist 
Order,19 to wit: 
(1) 
Count II, $950 constituting the Respondent’s fees charged to 
Burch for estate planning and legal fees collected on behalf of McCracken; 
(2) 
Count III, $1,750 constituting the Respondent’s fees charged to 
Welsh for estate planning and legal fees collected on behalf of McCracken; 
 
(3) 
Count IV, $395 constituting the Respondent’s fees charged to 
Abbott for estate planning and legal fees collected on behalf of McCracken; 
                                          
 
18 Bd. R. 11. 
19 The Court accepts the Respondent’s calculations of fees earned after the Cease and 
Desist Order was entered. 
 
26
 
(4) 
Count V, $900 accounting fees charged to the Estate of William 
A. McElhone; 
 
(5) 
Count VI, $995 constituting the Respondent’s fees charged to 
Titus for estate planning and legal fees collected on behalf of McCracken; 
 
(6) 
Count VII, $9,566.25 for fees charged to the Estate of Roe V. 
Cotman Hunt; 
 
(7) 
Count VIII, $1,237.50 for fees charged to the Estate of Anna 
Jane Floyd; 
 
(8) 
Count IX, $2,075 for fees charged to the Estate of Paul L. 
Dillow; 
 
(9) 
Count X, none of the fees charged to the Estate of Carol A. 
Phillips were incurred after October 30, 2006.   
In addition to disgorging the foregoing fees in the amount of 
$17,868.75, the Respondent is fined $2000 for each of the nine counts of 
contemptuous conduct.  Therefore, the Respondent is ordered to pay the 
Clerk of this Court $35,868.75 within thirty days of the date of this Opinion.   
This Court’s Cease and Desist Order shall remain in full force and 
effect.  Any further violations by the Respondent will be sanctioned in an 
escalated manner that is commensurate with such repeat offenses.