Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Vanderslice

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
In the Matter of a 
 
§ 
Member of the Bar of 
 
§ 
No. 428, 2012 
the Supreme Court of Delaware: 
§ 
 
 
§ 
Board Case No. 2011-0548-B 
PATRICK E. VANDERSLICE, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: September 19, 2012 
 
Decided: 
October 12, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on Professional 
Responsibility of the Supreme Court.  SUSPENSION IMPOSED. 
 
 
Joelle E. Polesky, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington, 
Delaware. 
 
 
Charles Slanina, Esquire, Finger & Slanina, LLC, Hockessin, Delaware, for 
Patrick E. Vanderslice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Per Curiam: 
 
2
 
This attorney disciplinary matter involves charges of professional 
misconduct against Patrick E. Vanderslice, Esquire (“Vanderslice”).  The Board of 
Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) found that Vanderslice had violated the 
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) 1.5(f), 1.15(a) and 
(b), and 8.4(b) and (c), but not Rule 8.4(d).  The Office of Disciplinary Counsel 
(“ODC”) contended that Vanderslice had violated Rule 8.4(d) as well as the other 
above-cited Rules, and that the Board should have so found.  Vanderslice disputes 
that he violated Rule 8.4(b) (as the Board found) and Rule 8.4(d) (as the ODC 
contends). 
 
Although the Board and the ODC agree that the presumptive sanction is 
suspension, the Board now joins Vanderslice in advocating a public reprimand 
with probation, because of mitigating factors.  The ODC takes the position that this 
Court should suspend Vanderslice for at least one year.  We independently 
determine that Vanderslice should be suspended from the practice of law for one 
year.   
Facts 
 
Vanderslice, a member of the Delaware Bar since 1999, was an associate at 
a Delaware law firm from 2000 to 2005, after which he became a partner until he 
was dismissed from that firm in October 2011.  Vanderslice continues to practice 
law in Delaware. 
 
3
 
In 2008 and 2009, Vanderslice began experiencing personal and emotional 
problems because of deaths in his family.  In December 2009, he began seeking 
treatment for his ongoing depression.  In September 2010, his firm instituted a 
twenty-five percent pay cut for its partners, to ensure the firm’s survival during the 
economic recession.  To mitigate his financial difficulties resulting from the pay 
cut, Vanderslice misappropriated clients’ “consultation fees” and “flat fees” from 
the firm on eight occasions between December 2010 and September 2011.  He also 
caused clients to enter into retainer agreements that failed to provide that any 
retainer was refundable if unearned, even though in practice his firm refunded any 
unearned retainers to its clients.  There is no evidence that Vanderslice ever 
diverted any unearned retainers from the firm or its clients.   
In September 2011, while Vanderslice was still misappropriating funds, the 
firm discovered his thefts.  In early October 2011, the firm confronted Vanderslice, 
who confessed and was immediately dismissed.  The firm told Vanderslice that he 
had two weeks to report his misconduct to the ODC, which he did.  Altogether, 
Vanderslice stole $1780 from his firm, for which the firm was later fully 
reimbursed.1 
                                          
 
1 The Board and the ODC disagree on whether Vanderslice voluntarily reimbursed his firm.  The 
Board found that the reimbursement was voluntary, because Vanderslice repaid the firm from a 
life insurance distribution that the firm had made to him upon his dismissal.  The ODC argues 
 
 
4
Procedural Background 
 
In the ODC’s Petition for Discipline against Vanderslice, it alleged that he 
violated Rules 1.5(f),2 1.15(a)3 and (b),4 and 8.4(b),5 (c),6 and (d).7  Vanderslice 
admitted to having violated Rule 1.5(f) in part,8 and Rules 1.15(a) and (b), and 
8.4(c). 
                                          
 
that this life insurance offset was a “forced,” and not a voluntary, reimbursement.  Our 
conclusions are not affected by whether the reimbursement was voluntary.   
2 Rule 1.5(f) provides that “[a] lawyer may require the client to pay some or all of the fee in 
advance of the . . . representation, provided that: (1) The lawyer shall provide the client with a 
written statement that the fee is refundable if it is not earned, [and] (2) The written statement 
shall state the basis under which the fees shall be considered to have been earned . . . .” 
3 Rule 1.15(a) provides that “[a] lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a 
lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own 
property.” 
4 Rule 1.15(b) provides that “[u]pon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third 
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person . . . [and] shall 
promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive . . . .” 
5 Rule 8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit a criminal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects.” 
6 Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” 
7 Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” 
8 Vanderslice admitted that three cases of deficiently drafted retainer agreements constituted 
three violations of Rule 1.5(f).  He claimed, however, that two other cases—where he did not 
provide retainer agreements to clients who paid consultation fees and flat fees to the firm—did 
not constitute Rule 1.5(f) violations, because the fees were earned when paid and not retainers 
subject to Rule 1.5(f).  The Board agreed with Vanderslice, and the ODC has not objected to that 
part of the Board’s findings.   
 
5
 
Vanderslice denied, however, that he violated Rule 8.4(b) by committing a 
“criminal act that reflect[ed] adversely on [his] honesty, trustworthiness or fitness 
as a lawyer.”  The Board noted that Vanderslice had committed theft under 11 Del. 
C. § 841(a)9 when he “took money belonging to his firm while intending to deprive 
the firm of same, [and found that his conduct] reflected adversely on [his] honesty, 
trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.”   
The Board found that Vanderslice had not engaged in conduct that was 
“prejudicial to the administration of justice” under Rule 8.4(d).  Specifically, 
Vanderslice did not violate Rule 8.4(d), because he did not “breach[] . . . any duties 
owed to the legal system, such as being truthful to the court, expediting litigation, 
avoiding unmeritorious claims, avoiding injury to a client or party, obeying court 
rules and orders, or avoiding improper communications with those involved in the 
judicial process.”10 
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Board concluded that 
Vanderslice violated a duty owed to his clients by furnishing them with deficiently 
                                          
 
9 11 Del. C. § 841(a) provides that “[a] person is guilty of theft when the person takes, exercises 
control over or obtains property of another person intending to deprive that person of it or 
appropriate it.” 
10 In generating that list of legal duties, the Board cited Standard 6.0 of the ABA Standards for 
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”).  See ABA Standards (1992), available at 
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/regulation/standards_sanctions.authc
heckdam.pdf.  
 
6
drafted retainer agreements.  The Board further found that he violated his duty to 
maintain personal integrity, by “act[ing] with the most culpable mental state—
[intentionally—when he] acted with the conscious objective and purpose of 
withholding earned fees from his partners.”  Vanderslice did not harm the firm, 
however.  The firm was fully reimbursed for the relatively minor amount of money 
taken, and there was no evidence that the missing funds had any effect on the 
firm’s finances.  Nor was there any injury to the firm’s clients, because the firm 
always treated the retainers as refundable despite Vanderslice’s inaccurate retainer 
agreements. 
The Board found that three factors aggravated the severity of Vanderslice’s 
misconduct: (1) a dishonest or selfish motive, (2) a pattern of misconduct, and (3) 
multiple offenses.11  The Board also considered five mitigating factors: (1) the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, (2) personal or emotional problems, (3) 
character or reputation, (4) interim rehabilitation, and (5) remorse.12  In addition, 
the Board ascribed “significant” importance to Vanderslice’s history of handling 
over seventy-five pro bono cases. 
Based on its analysis of these factors, the Board acknowledged that the 
presumptive sanction is suspension, but concluded that a public reprimand with 
                                          
 
11 See ABA Standard 9.22.  
 
7
two years of probation would be more appropriate.13  The Board explained that: (i) 
Vanderslice did not misappropriate client funds but, rather, firm funds; (ii) there 
was no injury to any client; and (iii) his good character and reputation, public 
service, and treatment for his depression mitigated the severity of his offenses. 
 
The ODC responded that Vanderslice violated Rule 8.4(d), and also that this 
Court should impose a suspension of at least one year for his violation of all six 
Rules.  In his Response, Vanderslice contests the Board’s conclusion that he 
violated Rule 8.4(b),14 and the ODC’s claim that he violated Rule 8.4(d).  He urges 
this Court to adopt the Board’s recommendation of a public reprimand with 
probation. 
                                          
 
12 See id. at 9.32. 
13 The Board also recommended that as a condition of his probation, Vanderslice must continue 
treatment with his therapist, have regular meetings with a practice monitor, and reimburse the 
ODC for its costs. 
14 Vanderslice’s objection to the Board’s conclusion that he violated Rule 8.4(b) was contained 
in his September 12, 2012 Response to the ODC’s Objections.  Any objections to the Board’s 
Report, however, had to be filed by August 23, 2012.  The ODC has therefore moved to strike 
that portion of Vanderslice’s Response that objected to the Board’s Rule 8.4(b) finding, arguing 
that Vanderslice waived his objection by failing to file by August 23, 2012.  We need not rule on 
the ODC’s Motion to Strike.  As we hold today, Vanderslice violated Rule 8.4(b), even if we 
consider his Rule 8.4(b) objections, which we do not find compelling.   
 
8
Discussion 
 
This Court has “the exclusive authority for disciplining members of the 
Delaware Bar.”15  Although “the Board’s recommendation on the appropriate 
sanction is helpful to the court, it is not binding.”16  This Court “has an obligation 
to review the record independently and determine whether there is substantial 
evidence to support the Board’s factual findings.”17  We review questions of law de 
novo.18   
 
Here, the Board and Vanderslice agree that he violated Rule 1.5(f) with 
regards to his three deficiently drafted retainer agreements, as well as Rules 1.15(a) 
and (b), and 8.4(c).  The ODC agrees with the Board’s conclusions, and no longer 
asserts that two other cases (involving clients’ “consultation fees” and “flat fees”) 
constitute additional violations of Rule 1.5(f).  We have carefully reviewed the 
Board’s Report, and conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to 
support the Board’s factual findings and conclusions of law regarding 
Vanderslice’s violations of Rules 1.5(f), 1.15(a) and (b), and 8.4(c).  We therefore 
address only three substantive issues: (1) whether Vanderslice violated Rule 8.4(b), 
                                          
 
15 In re Katz, 981 A.2d 1133, 1149 (Del. 2009). 
16 Id. (quoting In re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851, 866 (Del. 2003)). 
17 In re Bailey, 821 A.2d at 862. 
18 In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482, 484 (Del. 2007). 
 
9
(2) whether he violated Rule 8.4(d), and (3) what the appropriate sanction should 
be.   
I. 
Whether Vanderslice Violated Rule 8.4(b) 
 
Rule 8.4(b) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit 
a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer.”  The Board found that Vanderslice violated Rule 8.4(b) by 
committing theft.  Vanderslice argues that he did not violate Rule 8.4(b), because 
the ODC failed to allege in its Petition that his conduct constituted a specific crime. 
 
Although the ODC’s Petition did not identify any specific criminal 
provision, we adopt the Board’s conclusions that Vanderslice was not unfairly 
prejudiced by the omission.19  Vanderslice committed theft by misappropriating 
firm funds.  That conduct reflects adversely on Vanderslice’s honesty, 
trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.20  Therefore, the Board properly 
concluded that Vanderslice violated Rule 8.4(b). 
II. 
Whether Vanderslice Violated Rule 8.4(d)  
 
Rule 8.4(d) mandates that professional misconduct occurs when a lawyer 
engages in conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  The Board 
argues that Rule 8.4(d) requires a violation of a legal duty under ABA Standard 
                                          
 
19 Bd.’s Rep. at 9. 
 
10
6.0.21  Standard 6.0 provides that giving false statements or documents to a court, 
causing injury or potential injury to a client or party, and engaging in improper 
communications with persons within the legal system, all constitute such a 
violation.22  Quoting Rule 8.4(d)’s annotation in the ABA Annotated Model Rules, 
Vanderslice argues that Rule 8.4(d) is “usually—but not always—limited to 
conduct connected with court proceedings.”  The ODC responds that any “criminal 
and dishonest conduct by an attorney is, by its very nature, prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.” 
Comment 2 to Rule 8.4 offers guidance on the proper interpretation of Rule 
8.4(d): “Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a 
lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of 
those characteristics relevant to law practice.  Offenses involving violence, 
dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice 
are in that category.”23  The Board’s argument—that a Rule 8.4(d) violation 
requires a breach of a legal duty—is thus overly narrow.  Vanderslice’s 
argument—that Rule 8.4(d) is “usually” reserved for conduct related to legal 
                                          
 
20 See id. 
21 See ABA Standard 6.0. 
22 See id. at 6.0-6.3. 
23 Rule 8.4 cmt. 2 (emphasis added). 
 
11
proceedings—also excessively restricts the scope of that Rule.  Both the Board and 
Vanderslice overlook the statement in Comment 2 that offenses involving 
dishonesty “are” necessarily also Rule 8.4(d) violations.  The text of that Comment 
makes clear that a Rule 8.4(d) violation occurs where there is either a breach of a 
legal duty or a crime of violence, dishonesty, or breach of trust.24  On the other 
hand, the ODC’s bright-line interpretation of Rule 8.4(d)—where any “criminal 
and dishonest” conduct would “by its very nature” violate that Rule—is overly 
broad.  As Comment 2 again elucidates, only certain crimes that “indicate [a] lack 
of those characteristics relevant to law practice” constitute Rule 8.4(d) violations. 
 
We interpret Rule 8.4(d) to mean that although not all crimes are 
“prejudicial to the administration of justice,” crimes involving “violence, 
dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of 
justice” are categorically Rule 8.4(d) violations.  Given our interpretation of Rule 
8.4(d), and because Vanderslice committed theft (an offense involving dishonesty 
                                          
 
24 Although a majority of our cases involving Rule 8.4(d) violations have revolved around 
violations of a legal duty (such as a failure to pay taxes), we have also found Rule 8.4(d) 
violations for attorneys who have committed crimes involving violence, dishonesty, or a breach 
of trust.  See, e.g., In re Nixon, 2012 WL 3030517 (Del. July 25, 2012) (holding attorney who 
had been convicted of possessing drugs violated Rule 8.4(d)); In re Melvin, 807 A.2d 550, 554 
(Del. 2002) (noting that “even if a lawyer’s criminal conduct does not result in an articulable 
injury to another person, public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession is undermined 
when any lawyer engages in criminal conduct”). 
 
12
and a breach of trust), we conclude that he should be “professionally answerable” 
for his conduct under Rule 8.4(d).25 
III. 
Sanctions 
 
We hereby impose a one-year suspension on Vanderslice.  Attorney 
disciplinary sanctions “are not designed to be either punitive or penal.”26  The 
purposes of the attorney disciplinary system are “to protect the public, to protect 
the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in the legal profession, and to 
deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.”27  In determining a sanction, this 
Court considers four factors set forth in the ABA Standards: (1) the ethical duties 
violated, (2) the lawyer’s mental state, (3) the actual or potential injury caused, and 
(4) any aggravating and mitigating factors.28 
 
Vanderslice and the Board urge that a public reprimand with probation be an 
appropriate sanction, for three reasons.  First, there was no harm to Vanderslice’s 
firm because the firm was fully reimbursed for the small amount of money taken, 
and there was no evidence that the missing funds adversely affected the firm’s 
                                          
 
25 See Rule 8.4 cmt. 2. 
26 In re Fountain, 878 A.2d 1167, 1173 (Del. 2005) (quoting In re Garrett, 835 A.2d 514, 515 
(Del. 2003)).  
27 Id. (quoting In re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851, 866 (Del. 2003)). 
28 Id.; see ABA Standard 3.0. 
 
13
finances.  Second, there was no actual or potential injury to any clients, and third, 
Vanderslice’s mitigating factors outweigh his aggravating factors.   
 
In response, the ODC argues that Vanderslice harmed the firm by 
misappropriating funds at a time when the firm was in a precarious financial 
situation.  Although there is no evidence that the embezzled funds had any adverse 
effect on the firm’s finances, there was a “potential for further injury” to the firm 
had Vanderslice been able to continue his embezzlements.  The ODC also 
identifies two aggravating factors that were omitted from the Board’s Report: (1) 
Vanderslice’s substantial experience in the practice of law; and (2) his involuntary 
reporting to the ODC that resulted from “firm scrutiny and action,” and not from 
his voluntary self-reporting.29  The ODC further argues that there is no evidence 
supporting the Board’s view that Vanderslice’s personal and emotional problems 
caused his misconduct.  Nor (the ODC points out) do Vanderslice’s eight instances 
of persistent misconduct over ten months support the Board’s findings with respect 
to his good character and reputation. 
 
Vanderslice replies that any potential for his misconduct to cause harm (as 
the ODC claims) is speculative and rhetorical.  Moreover, it is not necessary that 
                                          
 
29 See ABA Standard 9.22; In re Lassen, 672 A.2d 988, 999 (Del. 1996); In re Figliola, 652 A.2d 
1071, 1077-78 (Del. 1995). 
 
14
his depression was an actual cause of his misconduct, because he does not claim 
that his ongoing treatment for depression is a defense—only a mitigating factor. 
 
Under ABA Standard 5.12, a suspension is “generally appropriate when a 
lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the 
elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice.”  A public reprimand, under ABA Standard 5.13, is 
“generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other [presumably 
non-criminal] conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation 
and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”   
 
We order a one-year suspension, because Vanderslice intentionally 
committed a criminal act (theft) eight times over a period of ten months, despite 
possessing a commendable pro bono record and despite other mitigating factors.  A 
public reprimand, usually reserved for inexperienced lawyers (as the cases 
discussed below indicate), would be unduly lenient. 
 
Our precedent generally supports the imposition of a one-year suspension.  
In In re Staropoli,30 a reciprocal disciplinary case, we ordered a one-year 
retroactive suspension for an attorney who had stolen funds from his firm on one 
occasion, and then continued to misrepresent the theft to his firm.  The attorney 
                                          
 
30 865 A.2d 522 (Del. 2005); In re Staropoli, No. 316, 2004 (Del. Aug. 4, 2004) (interim order). 
 
15
had not been previously subject to discipline, had fully reimbursed his firm, and 
had self-reported his misconduct to the ODC.31  Here, by contrast, Vanderslice 
stole funds from his firm on eight occasions, and his mitigating factors are offset 
by five aggravating factors.   
 
In In re Figliola,32 this Court held that reckless and knowing 
misappropriation of firm and client funds on multiple occasions warranted a six-
month-and-one-day suspension.  The attorney had no prior misconduct, had 
reimbursed the embezzled funds, and had cooperated with the investigation.33  In 
this case, Vanderslice’s pattern of misappropriation was intentional—a mental 
state that points to a more severe sanction for him than for the attorney disciplined 
in Figliola.   
 
In In re Campbell,34 an experienced attorney intentionally diverted both firm 
and client funds to support a gambling addiction.  The attorney had no prior 
disciplinary record, had attempted to ameliorate the consequences of his 
misconduct, had been undergoing therapy for his gambling compulsion, and had 
                                          
 
31 In re Staropoli, No. 316, 2004 (Del. Aug. 4, 2004) (interim order). 
32 652 A.2d 1071 (Del. 1995). 
33 Id. at 1077. 
34 760 A.2d 162 (Del. 2000). 
 
16
self-reported his misconduct to both his firm and the ODC.35  This Court ordered 
that the attorney be suspended for six months and one day.36  Although Vanderslice 
did not misappropriate client funds, as the Campbell attorney did, Vanderslice also 
did not self-report his misconduct.  Indeed, he confessed his misconduct to his firm 
only after the firm had confronted him, and he reported himself to the ODC only 
when faced with “firm scrutiny and action.”37  Compared to the Campbell attorney 
who diverted funds to satisfy a gambling addiction, Vanderslice also has not 
established any connection between his depression and his misconduct that could 
mitigate his offenses.  If his depression is unrelated to his misconduct, then 
evidence of Vanderslice’s ongoing therapy is irrelevant and should not have been 
considered as a mitigating factor.  Vanderslice’s case is therefore more similar to 
Staropoli (where we imposed a one-year, retroactive suspension) than to Figliola 
or Campbell (where, in each case, we imposed a six-month-and-one-day 
suspension).   
 
Two cases cited by the Board, In re Gielata38 and In re Schaeffer,39 are also 
inapposite here.  In Gielata, this Court ordered a public reprimand for an attorney 
                                          
 
35 Id.; In re Campbell, No. 247, 2000 (Del. May 25, 2000) (Bd. order and op.). 
36 In re Campbell, 760 A.2d at 162. 
37 See In re Lassen, 672 A.2d 988, 999 (Del. 1996); In re Figliola, 652 A.2d at 1077-78. 
38 933 A.2d 1249 (Del. 2007). 
 
17
who had committed theft in violation of Rules 8.4(b), (c), and (d).40  We imposed 
that sanction, however, partly because the attorney was inexperienced in the 
practice of law and had voluntarily disclosed his misconduct.41  In Schaeffer, we 
ordered a public reprimand for an attorney who had intentionally telephoned police 
about a fictitious “hostage situation,” again because (among other things) the 
attorney was inexperienced, and because there were no aggravating factors.42  
Vanderslice, however, is an experienced attorney who did not voluntarily disclose 
his misconduct either to his firm or to the ODC, and who has five aggravating 
factors that offset his mitigating factors.  
Conclusion 
We conclude that by misappropriating firm funds and generating deficiently 
drafted retainer agreements, Vanderslice violated Rules 1.5(f), 1.15(a) and (b), and 
8.4(b), (c), and (d).  His five aggravating factors also persuade us that the Board’s 
recommendation of a public reprimand with probation would be too lenient here.   
Accordingly, we order that Patrick E. Vanderslice be prohibited and 
suspended from engaging in the practice of law for one year.  During the 
                                          
 
39 45 A.3d 149 (Del. 2012). 
40 933 A.2d at 1249.  
41 Id. 
42 45 A.3d at 149. 
 
18
suspension, Vanderslice shall not conduct any act directly or indirectly constituting 
the practice of law, including the sharing or receipt of any legal fees.  Vanderslice 
shall not have any contact with clients or prospective clients, or witnesses or 
prospective witnesses, if he is acting as a paralegal, legal assistant, or law clerk 
under the supervision of a member of the Delaware Bar, or otherwise.   
The ODC shall file a petition in the Court of Chancery for the appointment 
of a Receiver of Vanderslice’s law practice pursuant to Procedural Rule 24; the 
Receiver shall provide notice to clients, adverse parties, and others as required by 
Procedural Rule 23; and the Receiver shall make such arrangements as may be 
necessary to protect the interests of any of Vanderslice’s clients and the public.  
Vanderslice shall cooperate in all respects with the Receiver, including providing 
him/her with all law office books and records. 
In addition, we order that the Board’s Report be made public, that 
Vanderslice fully cooperate with the ODC in any of its other efforts to monitor his 
compliance with this Opinion, and that the ODC disseminate this Opinion in 
accordance with Rule 14 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary 
Procedure.  The ODC is directed to submit within ten days of the date of this 
Opinion the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.  Thereafter, Vanderslice is 
directed to have all costs paid within thirty days.