Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Murray

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 the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware:

JOHN M. MURRAY,

§
§
§
§
§ No. 223, 2012
§

§

Respondent. (Board Case No. 2011-0170-B)

Submitted: June 13,2012
Decided: June 18, 2012

Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER

This 18* day of June 2012, it appears to the Court that the Board on
Professional Responsibility has filed a Report on this matter pursuant to
Rule 9(d) of The Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The
Office of Disciplinary Counsel approved the Report of the Board.
Respondent, through counsel, filed objections to the Board’s Report, and the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel has responded to those objections. The
Court has reviewed the matter pursuant to Rule 9(e) of The Delaware
Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and concludes the Board’s Report
should be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report filed by the
Board on Professional Responsibility on April 25, 2012 (copy attached) is
hereby APPROVED.

‘The Court hereby imposes a public reprimand. The Office of
Disciplinary Counsel is directed to file within ten days of the date of this
Order the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the Respondent
is directed to have all costs paid within thirty days.

‘The matter is hereby CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice
ATTACHMENT
EFiled: Apr 25 2012 3:53
Filing 1D 43892135
Case Number 223,2012

 

Susan H. Kirk Ryan
302 Brockton Road
‘Wilmington, Delaware 19803

‘April 25,2012

Patricia Bartley-Schwartz, Esquire
Office of Disciplinary Counse! 7
Carvel State Office Building
820N. French Street, 11* Floor
‘Wilmington, DE 19801

Eugene H. Bayard, Esquire
Wilson, Halbrook Bayard

107 West Market Steet 7
P.O. Box 690

Georgetown, DE 19947

 

Re: In the Matter of a Member of the Bar of the Supt

 

 

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed please find the recommendation ofthe Board on Professional
‘Responsibility inthe above-captioned matter.

Very tly yours,

Bees —

Mr, Steven D. Taylor, Court Administrator (w/enclosure)
‘Karen L Valihura, Esquire (w/enclosure)
‘Yvonne Anders Gordoa, B4.D. (wenclosure)

 
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

INTHEMATTEROFAMEMBER =) CONFIDENTIAL,
‘OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME )

‘COURT OF DELAWARE, ) Board Case No.
JOHN M. MURRAY, ) 2011-01708
RESPONDENT d

BOARD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SANCTION
1. Procedural Background

‘On November 2,2011, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (*ODC”) filed a
Petition for Discipine in Board Case No. 2011-0170 B (“Petition”) inthe matter of John
M. Murray Respondent”), a member ofthe Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware. The
Petition alleged violations of Rules 3.46), 3.5(@, 6.2 and 8.4(4) ofthe Delaware
Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”).

‘The Respondent filed an Answer in response tothe Petition on November 22,
2011, requesting findings that no violations of the above Rules occurred, and requesting
that ODC's petition be dismissed,

‘The hearing was originally scheduled for Wednesday, December 14,2011, but
‘was rescheduled atthe request of counsel for Respondent, for medical reasons.

‘A paoel "Panet”) ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”)
‘convened and the rescheduled hearing took place on Monday, January 23, 2012, Patricia
Bartley Schwartz, Esquire, represented ODC, and Eugene H. Bayard, Esquire,
represented the Respondent.
‘A the beginning ofthe hearing, the ODC and Respondent, through counse,
Presented a joint submission of Exhibits (Exhibits wll be referred to hereafter by the
number assigned in the joint submission). During the hearing, ODC offered Exhibit 23
(eMarch 11,2008, letter from Chief Fudge Kuhn) which was entered without objection.
Counsel also submited copies of case law to which they referred in closing arguments.

‘The panel heard testimony from the following witnesses: Kelly Dunn Geof,
Esquire; and John M. Murray, Esquire, Respondent

Pursuant to Rule 9 (4) ofthe Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
this isthe Board's Report, wit ts findings and recommendations.
TL Findings of Fact

The allegtions center on three occasions where the Family Court in Susex
(County appointed the Respondent an attorney precicng in Sussex County to serve as
‘counsel in Family Court matters. The critical facts involve the comespondence between
‘the Respondent andthe Family Court regarding those appointments. ODC and the
Respondent stipulate that the correspondence was exchanged. The language ofthe
comespondence on both sides is material to the consideration of whether violations
cccurred in this disciplinary mater. The names of clint for whom appointment was
sought are replaced in this Report withthe symbol “).”
‘The Respondent isa member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of Delaware, and was

 

‘admitted in 1995. At all relevant times, the Respondent was engaged in the private
practice of law in Sussex County, Delaware.

2. The Respondent represented a client in Family Court on May 13, 2009, and received.
‘anote of appreciation from the client on May 14, 2009. (Exhibit 1).
3. OnNovember 24, 2009, the Respondent was appointed by Judge John BE. Henriksen
of the Family Court of Sussex County to represent an adult ina guardianship
proceeding, scheduled for trial on April 7, 2010. (Exhibit 2). The Appoiatment leter
advised the Respondent that he could apply to the Cour for counsel fees, and that he
could “designate another member of your firm to represent the person specified by
‘notification tothe party and to the Court” The Cour futher stated, “Ifyou have any
legally cognizable reason why you cannot represent the party indicated, please advise
the undersigned.”

4. On December 20, 2009, the Respondent wrote Judge Henriksen, stating (Exhibit 3)-

Kindly note that my practice is primarily devoted to corporate/entity
‘mutters, business transectonal matters and certain tax matters. )'s legal

‘needs in this matter, would best be served by counsel with experience in
‘guardianship proceedings and with counsel that has specific knowledge of
‘the Family Court procedural and legal sues confronting (

If Your Honor stil requires that I represent [I respectfully request that
the Court disclose to [] the following:

‘8 [Respondent informed the Court that his practice is primarily

devoted to corporateentity matters and business transactional
matters and tax matters.

'. [Respondent informed the Cour that he believes tat ()'s legal
‘needs, inthis matter, would be best served by counsel experienced
with te Family Court procedural and legs issues
‘including, but not imited to, trying a case in Family Court
connected with ['s legal issues.

«. [Respondent informed the Cour that he believes it isin ['s best
{interest to have counsel with specific and significant experience in
handling petitions for guardianship to represent him inthis master.

4, [Respondent] asked the Court, on behalf of [], tat counsel with
‘experience with these types of matters be appointed.

‘Noting the above disclosures by (Respondent), the Court
nonetheless requires [Respondent] to represent ] inthis matter.

‘The Respondent then noted that he would be “unavailable forthe next couple of weeks.”
5. On January 4,2010, Judge Henriksen wrote the Respondent (Exhibit 4):

‘With the presumption that you have been admitted to practice before the
Delaware Bar, I must deny your request to be relieved from your appointment. In
‘dition, Ido not intend to comply with any ofthe other requests in your lete...

‘We have several attorneys who do not practice family law, ot any trial type of
Jaw, who have diligently, appropriately and graciously accepted their appointment
1s pat ofthe long tradition of the Delaware Bar. Many of those same attorneys
have found the work to be very gratifying. We have had two attorneys surrender
their license to practice law in the State of Delaware rather than undertake this
representation. Finally, and another alternative you may wish to pursue, is to
contact attomeys who regularly dealin this area who might be willing to
substitute themselves as counsel for you fora certain fee. I happen to know that
Ashley Oland, Esquire and Patrick Vanderslice, Esquire have accepted cases from
other attorneys such as yourself inthe past. (Exhibit 4)

6. The Respondent seat a March 4, 2010, letter, via certified mail to Judge Henriksen
(Exhibit 5), stating:

apologize for my failure of expression, but I mistakenly thought Your
Honor would understand the purpose of my December 20, 2009 letter was to
protect [].

I respect Your Honor’s opinion, but a substantial portion of Your Honor's

Jette is not relevant to protecting {} in Family Court... statements that other
lawyers have (a) “found the work to be very gratifying” and (b) “graciously
accepted their appointment” are not germane to protecting [].

With my December 20, 2009, eter, I disclosed to Your Honor that my

primary practice does not include any family law, and tht you are assigning
{mutt to comec inerperence wile Fuily Cou matics who doct not
have the time nor the resources (I am a solo-prectitioner) to properly
represent ().

{will make the same disclosures to [] by providing him...a copy of (8) my
December 20, 2009, letter, (b), your January 4, 2010 reply, (c this letter,
and (4) any response you provide once I have []'s mailing address end
phone number, which I previously requested from your Honor... To date,
this basic information...has not been provided...

appears that Your Honor does not know whether I am admitted to practice
in Delaware ~ “With the presumption that you have been admitted to
practice before the Delaware Bar” — I am.
[Plechaps in your reference to tradition, Your Honor has oversimplified []'s
Family Court interests.

In sum, it isnot fir to [] to point to (a) the grave of other attorneys, (0)
feelings of gratitude... and/or (c) tradition to support or justify Your
Honor’s appointment of inexperienced counsel.

{In footnotes to the same letter, the Respondent adds:

Although Ihave very limited experience with Your Honor...Your Honor
‘may recall a case where I became involved after your inital judgment,
‘where Your Honor convicted an unrepresented 13 year old of a felony ia
violation of her constitutional right to counsel) stating onthe record,
incorrectly, thatthe 13 year old was represented by counsel, I submitted «
pport-conviction ler to Your Honor identitying these and otber fact,
‘Your Honor subsequently recognized his mistake and vacated/reversed the
judgment.

Even though afoot surgeon and brain surgeon ae both doctors, you would
‘ot want afoot surgeon o perform your bran surgery. The el

Principal ~ if you don't know i, don't do it~ should apply. Fr ['s
protection, a business lawyer who doesnot practice family law should not
be representing in Family Cour

(Uimately, the Respondent represented the client until the conclusion ofthe Family
Court matter in 2010. T-37,)

 

(On June 11, 2010, Judge Jones of Family Court in Sussex County wrote the
Respondent, commending the Respondent for his work on a different client's behalf

1s a guardian ad liem in Family Court since September 2005, (Exhibit 6)

(On January 3, 2011, the Respondent was appointed by Family Court Commissioner

Sonja T. Wilson to representa juvenile ina criminal matter (Unlawful Sexual Contact
39) scheduled for tial on January 18, 2011. The appointment letter advised that the

Respondent could apply for counsel fees, and could designate another member ofthe
Respondent's firm to represent the elient. (Exhibit 7).

‘On January 10, 2011, the Respondent sent a letter, via fax, to Commissioner Wilson,
requesting 10 withdraw as counsel (Exhibit 8), stating among other things:
10,

have no experience in juvenile delinquent and/or juvenile criminal
‘matiers. My practice is primarily devoted to corporateleatity matters and
‘business transactional matters.

L's legal needs, in this mater, would be best served by counse! that has
specific experience with (a) criminal mater, (6) cases involving
“unlawful sexual contact third”, and (c) the Family Court procedural and
substantive legl issues confronting ).

1 am a solo-practitioner that does not bave the resources nor the time to
‘properly represent [] in this Family Court criminal matte. 1 am not
‘available, nor could Ibe prepared for this Trial, on January 18, 2011 at
9:00 a.

If Your Honor stil requires that represent (I espectfilly request that
(the record reflect, and (i the Court disclose to (the following:

‘8 [Respondent] informed the Court that his practice is primarily
<evoted to corporateentity matters and business transactional
matters,

'. [Respondent informed the Court that he has no experience with
efending anyone in a Family Court criminal case, and that he has
never defended anyone charged with “Unlawful Sexual Contact.”

‘¢. [Respondent informed the Court that he has no experience in
juvenile delinquent and/or juvenile criminal matters, including, but
‘ot limited to, trying a criminal case involving these issues.

44. [Respondent informed the court that he believes it isin []'s best
interest that ] be represented by counsel that as experience with
(@) criminal matters, and (b) cases involving allegations of
“unlawful sexual contac third”, and (c) the Family Court
procedural and substantive issues confronting [).

‘e. [Respondent] asked the Cour, on behalf of [that counsel with
‘experience in these types of matters be appointed.

~ For the above stated reasons, I
‘ued th be pertd wo witrew a counsel

‘The Family Court denied the Respondent's Motion to Withdraw on January 12,
2011, via fix (Exhibit 9). The facsimile included a handwritten notation: “Motion
denied ~ [Respondent] may find someone to substitute for him — Commissioner

Holloway. If more time is needed, may request continuance”
11, The Respondent sent a January 13, 2011, letter via fax to Commissioner
Holloway (Exhibit 10), informing the Commissioner thatthe Respondent spoke
with the defendant's mother, telling her tha the Respondent's practice is devoted
to business...matters, that he has “no experience representing any party in (a)
criminal matter, o (b) Family Court criminal matter with allegations of unlawful
sexual contact third degree.” Citing “the Family Couns late notice of
appointment," the Respondent tld the Court that he read to the client's mother
the Respondent's January 10 leter tothe Court “and informed her that you denied
‘my request to withdraw.” The Respondent continued:

‘As your Honor did not provide any reasons o justifications forthe
‘sppointiment of inexperienced counsel when responding to my request to
withdraw, [the defendant's mother), on bebalf of her son, respectfully
‘requests thet your Honor provide specific relevant and suppocied reasons
in writing for your appointment of inexperienced course to represent
ber son.

[The defendant's mother] would specifically lke to know bow itis
{nthe best interest ofher mina child fr your Honor to appoint an
sFiorey with no expercnce with eases involving allegations of
‘lawl sexual contact third degree to represent her son in Family
Court? [Emphasis in original tex]

“The Respondent then requested & 30 day continuance, Ina footnote, the
Respondest repeated for Commissioner Holloway the “foot surgeon/brain
surgeon” theme from Respondent's March 2010 letter to Judge Hensiksen
(Exnibit 5):

'Bven though foot surgeon and bain surgeon ae both doctors, you would
not want a fot surgeon to perform your brain suger. The elementary

~ if you don't know it dont do it~ should apo. For [T's
‘roecion, a business inwyer who docs aot practice family law or eiminal
Tw should not be representing (a Family Court.

 

12. Ina January 14, 2011, handwritten notation on the cover page of the Respondent's
{fx to the Court, the Court wrote, “Reschedule/Reappoint." (Exhibit 11).
13.On January 21, 2011, Commissioner Holloway directed correspondence fom the
Janvary 2011 appointment, as well as conespondence from Judge Hentksen's
2009/2010 appointment, to ODC, noting that Respondent was permitted to withdraw
from the January 2011 appointment since the “well had been poisoned.”
‘Commissioner Holloway note the referal to ODC was prompted bythe fact that her
‘experience was not the fit time thatthe Respondent had communicated withthe
‘Court in the manner he did. The Commissioner hoped the Respondent could be
“educated about the appointment process so that this doesnot occur again, in the
likely event that he is again appointed.” (Exhibit 12)

14, On February 11, 2011, ODC informed the Respondent of the Family Court referral to
ODE (Exhibit 13).

15. On February 4, 2011, counsel for Respondent replied on Respondent's behalf to
(ODe. (Exhibit 14,

16.On March 11,2011, the Chief Judge Kun appointed the Respondent to serve as
counsel ina Family Cour criminal mater in Sussex County (Arrigament for Gun
‘Court Possession of Firearms by a Person Prohibited, Theft of Firearms, and
‘Conspiracy Second Degree). The sppointment letter advised the Respondent that he
could designate another member of his frm to represent the cient. (Exhibit 15)

17, On March 16,2011, the Respondent wrote via fax (Exhibit 16) to Judge Henriksen,
who was to preside over the criminal Family Court mater, The Respondent nated
‘that he received the appointment information, including a 26-page fax, on March 16,
2011, for an arraignment the next day.
 

‘The Respondent added, ina letter substantially similar to his prior letters seeking
to’ relieved of appointment (only the italicized portions ofthe leter differ from the

previous letter seeking relief from appointment):

Ihave no experience trying a criminal matter in Gu Court. My practice is
primarily devoted to corporate/entty matters and business transactional matters.

[0's legal needs, in this matter, would be best served by counsel that has specific
experience with () criminal mates, i) cases involving allegations of:
‘possession ofa firearm by a person prohibited. theft, and conspiracy second
degre, and (i) the Family Court procedural and substantive legal issues
confronting [-

1am a solo-practioner. Jd not have the resources nor he time to propely
represent} n this Family Cour criminal matter. I am not avaiable on March 17,
2011, and I could not be prepare fo this matter withthe shor notice given.

{If Your Honor still requires that I represent (I respectfilly request that () the
recon reflect, and (i the Court disclose to [the folowing:

‘2. [Respondent] informed the Court that his practice is primarily
evoted to corporatefentity matters and business transactional

 

matters.

», [Respondent] informed the Cour that he has no experience with
defending enyone in a Family Court gun case, and he has never
defended anyone charged with () possession of a firearm by a
‘person prohibited, (i) theft. and (it) conspiracy second degree.

‘& [Respondent] informed the Court that be has no experience with
‘the legal issues confronting [], including, but not limited to, trying
‘criminal case involving these isues.

4. [Respondent] informed the court that he believes itis in['s best
‘intrest that (} be represented by counsel that hes experience with
(criminal mater, and (i) the specific charges [] s facing, od
(U0 the Family Court procedural and substantive issues

‘confronting
©. [Respondent] asked the Court, on bebalf of (J, that counsel with
‘experience with (]'s legal issues be sppointed,

‘Thea the Respondent takes a new tack, by pointing out to Judge Henriksen the
‘ODC matter now pending, saying that Commissioner Holloway had filed the complaint
and had forwarded leters from Judge Henriksen to the ODC. Respondent then stated:
Although I do not know the extent of your involvement in the ODC mater, I wil
{inform [] of Your Honor’s participation, (] can then consider this information and
determine its relevance. He may conclude Your Honor's role in the ODC matter
is evidence of a conflict.

Under these circumstances, I donot believe itis (i in the best interest of (} for me
to represent him before Your Honor, and/or (i) appropriate for me to appear in
Family Court or before Your Honor while the ODC’s evaluation is pending,
believe the Court will want to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

‘Request to Withdraw as Counse}

‘As is my practice, I wil disclose to [] my areas of expertise and my lack of
‘experience (in this case, I have no experience) withthe Family Cour criminal

‘issues confronting J. T respectfully submit that this appointment is notin the best
interest of the minor.

 

Request for Continuance

If Your Hovor denies my request to withdraw as counsel on )'s bebalf request
12.38 day continuance...

Alternate Way to Assist the Court

Instead of being assigned cases in matters where Ihave no experience or
‘expertise, I would be glad to discuss a possible alterate way that I might be able
‘to assist the Family Court within my area of expertise after the ODC mater is
resolved.

Represented by Counsel

{Lam represented by Eugene F. Bayard, Esq... Until the ODC matter is resolved,
please send all future correspondence to Mr. Bayard.

 

18, On March 23,2011, the Respondeat wrote the client's mother (Exhibit 17),
confirming a meeting the Respondent held with her and the client. The Respondent
‘repeated in writing tothe client's mother disclosures he had made to them in a meeting
on March 17, 2011:

| disclosed to you and your son that I am a business transactional lawyer and that
‘my practice is primarily devoted to corporatc/eatity matters. I also disclosed that

10
have no experience with the Family Court () legal, and (i) procedural issues
‘confronting your son; and tha Ihave no experience in trying a Gun Court case.

In the office conference with Chief Judge Kuhn, I mde the same disclosures and
‘requested that counsel with experience with the legal and procedural issues
‘confronting your son be appointed.

[informed you that Chief Judge Kuhn denied my request to withdraw. Chief
Judge Kuhn added that she would assign a lawyer to work with me on your son's
case,

‘Telephone Call

(On March 22, 011 you called indicating that you spoke with someone atthe
Family Court about having other counsel appointed...

‘You indicated that you were going to write the Cour to express your concems, I
informed you that as of March 22, 2011, Thad not heard from Chief Judge Kuba
‘with respect tothe lawyer she was going to have work with me on this case.

(On March 23, 2011, I received a call from Chief Judge Kuhn's secretary. She
indicated that Brace Rogers, Esquire wil serve as my mentor on your case. 1 do
‘ot know the extent of his involvement as a mento.

 

[The Respondent asks the client's mother to provide further documentation forthe
case).

19. The Respondent wrote Chief Judge Kuhn on March 30, 2011 (Exhibit 18), advising
Ie that
‘On March 17, 2011, I disclosed to () and his mother my areas of expertise and the
{fact that I do not have any experience withthe Family Cour legal and procedural

issues confronting her son. T also disclosed to [] and his mother that I have no
‘experience in trying a Gun Court case.

Office Conference

informed [] und her son that during the office conference on March 17, 2011,
Your Honor denied my request, on {J to have counsel with the requisite
‘experience represent (} and that you denied my motion o withdraw.

also informed [] thet you were going to assign counsel that has experience with
‘the legal and procedural issues confronting her son to work with me on his case.

{Tbrought to your Honor’s attention a conflict issue connected with a pending
‘ODC matter. Your Honor asked about the conflict. ... You stated, why was a

n
‘complaint even filed with the ODC if the motion to withdraw was granted. T
agreed with your point.

‘Telephone Call from 11

‘On March 22, 201. reminded [client's mother} that Your Honor was going 10
assign someone to work with me...1 informed [client's mother] that as of March
22,2011, you had not yet had the opportunity to assign another lawyer to work

with me.

‘March 23,2011 Call
‘On March 23, 2011.1 was informed that you spoke to Bruce A. Rogers, Esquire,
‘and that you asked him to serve as my mentor.

‘Please note that in the documents I received ftom the Family Court on March 16,
2011, there isa letier from Mr. Rogers...indiating that he had a conflict in the ()
satter.

‘March 28,2011 Cll
Tealled{} on March 28,2011... [} informed me...that she retained Eric Mooney,
[Esquire to represent her son.

If scceptable to Your Honor, please allow this as notice of () substitution of
‘counsel, and (ji) my termination ofthe attorney-client relationship with [.

 

 

20. ODC submitted, without objection, a March 11, 2008, letter from Chief Judge
‘Chandlee Johnson Kuhn to Justice Henry duPont Ridgely, seeking to extend the Family
Court's method of appointing attorneys for Family Court matters in New Castle County
‘rom the list of attorneys practicing in New Castle County, noting the “method is utilized
by the Family Court in Kent and Sussex County and has worked well.” (Exhibit 23)

21, Hearing Testimony of Kelly Dunn Gelof, Esau
Counsel for ODC called Kelly Dunn Gelot, Es anatomy practicing in Sussex
County, to speak about the mandatory eppointment of counsel process in Sussex County
Counsel for Respondent made «continuing objection to Ms, Geof testinony,
‘on the basis thatthe testimony was “ouside the four comers ofthe charging document,”

2
and was “extraneous,” although athe same tim he had “no objection o (Ms. Gelots}
testimony beyond that. 1's information the Panel needs." 7:9.

‘The Pane allowed the testimony, givin it appropriate weight

Ms, Gelof testified from her experience asa private practitioner and co-manager
ofa persona injury fim of ine attorneys. Ma Gelof seid that a Family Court judge
‘ypially appoints anatomy by letter at which ime her firm doe a confit check and
lent the Court if a conflict arses. T-11. If here is no conti,

{tis our understanding that if we are appointed by the Cour, that we then take on

tat eppointment. Even ifit's not something tet we've ever done before o ae

fumiliar or feel comfortable with, because the Court has appoisied uso doth

‘because they didn't have a conflict atime available or for whstever reason they

ood representation.

i's our understanding that we are able o bil ata significantly reduced amount
‘erhour, [That's just something tat we accept and do Because ..ove the 15
‘nd a half years that I've been in Sussex County, that's how it's been done and
presented fous. T-12.

Ms, Geof said that attorneys seek guidance from other experienced attorneys. T=
13. She said she hasbeen appointed about four times in 15 years. T-21.. Ms. Gelof anid
she understands that she could seck counsel on er own to take her place iter from
‘within or outside of her firm, so long asthe attomey was admitted in good standing in
Delaware, T-14

‘And my understanding is, agin, that I ake onthe appointment and don't put it

‘back on to the Court for them to find someone else, Itake iton whether it’s me or
‘nother attorney. T-

 

‘Ms, Gelof estimated tht inthe lst three years, her firm has been appointed once
cc twice a year, and that individuals might get called once “every coupe of years.” 17
Ms, Geof recalled being appointed to a Superior Court case where a defendant faced

serious charges, and no one inher firm was familiar with that level of criminal matter,

3
but she took onthe case: “That's something you take on and find way to get your
{information to adequately defend that person.” 7-18-19. Ms, Gelof added, “I'm not
familiar with anything within the Family Court that any of my attorneys within our frm
‘would not beable to seck out some assistance to help." 7-20.

Ms, Gelof tested that ino one inthe firm could handle Family Court matter,
“we have given that case or requested that another atomey outside our firm handle that
sand we've been abl o...make our own arrangements... And whether i's them accepting
the minimal amount per hou...or if we agree to pay them from our own firm the
Aiference...it is my understanding we ar allowed to do that.” 7-22-23.

‘Ultimately, while the Panel appreciates Ms. Gelot's appearance and testimony,
that testimony was not critical to the Panel's decision, The Respondent conceded that he
‘was aware of the Sussex County Family Court mandatory appointment process and its
obligations, that his requests to withdraw would likely be denied, and that he was advised
‘expressly on numerous occasions —both in eppointment letters and in direct,
‘communications from the Family Cour - that he could avail himself of substitute counsel
‘or the assistance of other attomeys to help him with representation.

22. Hearing Testimony of John M, Muay, Esquire (Respondent)

‘The Respondent testified that he was admitted tothe Delaware Bar in 1995, and
‘so admited in Massachusets, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, He practices out of his
home in Sussex County, doing business transactional work with small corporate elints
and some contract work. The Respondent ssid “probably a majority ofthe ime bas been
‘on other than legal matters.” The Respondent, whose letterhead titles himself as “John
M. Murray, Eaquire, CPA," not active as aCPA. 1-29

4
‘The Respondent acknowledged representing a client in 2008, pursuant to a Family
Court appointment over parental rights, where the client was convicted in Superior Court
of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. T-29-30. The Respondent was familiar with the
Family Court appointment process. 31,

‘The Respondent acknowledged receiving « November 24, 2009, Notice of
‘Appointment from Family Court, end writing the Court on December 20, 2009, asking
‘the Family Court to withdraw its appointment of the Respondent end to appoint another,
‘more experienced lawyer. T-31.

‘The Respondent acknowledged that in denying the Respondent's request, Judge
[Henriksen suggested that the Respondent find another lawyer to handle the appointment
(Ge Court suggested two attorneys, Ms. Oland and Mr. Vanderslice, Exhibit 4). The
Respondent said that he didnot seek alteratve counsel. He said in one ofthe three
‘appointments at issue inthis ODC matter, he contacted a former contract attomey, Ms,
‘Cooper, who quoted an hourly fee of $250.00 to handle the case. Ms. Cooper was the
‘only atomey he contacted. 7-33.

‘The Respondent said that he does not accept alot of maters outside his limited,
narrow area of expertise, and he is concerned with the clients right to effective assistance
of counsel. T-36.

‘The Respondent said that ultimately, he represented the client for whom he was
appointed on November 24, 2009, to its conclusion. T-37.

‘The Respondent acknowledged his sppointment by the Family Court to serve as a
Guardian ad Litem fora 13 year-old foster care case, with hearings in Family Court about

twice a year for over four and a half years, T-39-40, Pursuant to that case, the

15
Respondent sought and obtained post-conviction relief for his client's conviction of a
criminal charge in Family Court, 1-37-38,

‘The Respondent acknowledged receipt ofa January 3, 2011, Family Court Notice
‘of Appointment (Exhibit 7), and of writing his January 10, 2011, letter (Exhibit 8)
secking to withdraw as counsel. T-40-41, The Respondent scknowledged that in
<deaying his request, the Commissioner included s handwritten note (Exhibit 9) stating
that the Respondent could find someone to substitute for him, and that if he needed more
time he could request a continuance, but he did not seek alternative counsel (Respondent
sought alternative counsel in one of these three matiers in which he asked to be relieved.
of his appointments). T-45,

‘The Respondent did not seek the advice of any other attorney as to what he should
do as a result of the Commissioner's denial of his request to withdraw. T-4s.

‘The Respondent said the purpose of his January 13, 2011, letter (Exhibit 10), ater
the Respondent's disclosure tothe client's mother thet he had “no expertise in ever
handling an individual accused of unlawful sexual contact, and...had never tied a.case in
Family Cour,” T-46, was to “set forth in the record the mother's concems with the
‘appointment of inexperienced counsel for her 14-year-old minor child, who, if convicted,
‘would have to register as a sex offender.” T-46-47.

‘The Respondent said he was not expecting the Court to grant his motion to
‘withdraw. T-47, Other counsel was appointed, however. T-49,

‘The Respondent acknowledged receipt of a March 11, 2011, Notice of
‘Appointment from Family Court (Exhibit 15) and that he requested leave to withdraw as
counsel on March 16, 2011 (Exhibit 16). The Respondent acknowledged some similarity

16
{nthe basis on which the Respondent requested that alternative counsel be appointed.
‘ODC clarified that it was how the Respondent handled the appointments, not the
substantive iasues behind the appointments, which ar at issue. T-52

‘The Respondent entimated that he was appointed by the Family Court in five to
seven matters, over a period of about five years, one of which lasted over four anda half
yeurs. T.53, The Respondent served his appointments in five cases, and he was relieved
ofhis appointments in two cases. T-S4,

‘The Respondent poinied out that he had offered to discuss an sterate way to
sssist the Court (Respondent's March 16, 201, eter, Exhibit 16), but noting has gone
further than his offer. T-5S.

‘The Respondent said his March 30,2011, eter to Chief Judge Kun (Exhibit 18),
‘was intended to inform the Court thatthe Respondent spoke to the defendant's mother,
‘who ssid shed retained private counsel and he was now asking to be excused. The
Respondent suid hat Judge Kuhn hd offered to find someone to help the Respondent,
‘od that his communication withthe proffered attorney was bref, since it was shortly
‘before the client's mother told the Respondent she had found other representation. T-55-
37

‘On eros-examination by his counsel the Respondent said he had Tess than 24
hours between his receipt ofthe Family Court appointment of counsel and the client's
scheduled arraignment. T-58.

‘The Respondeat said that he did not knowingly refuse to accept the appoiatments
cof January 2011 or March 2011. He sid that he moved to withdraw, although he dd not

a
‘expect his motions to be granted, and he also asked fora continuance in each case. T=
58-59,

‘The Respondent said he did not make “repeated requests to withdraw,” in that he
‘only made one request in each case. T-59-60.

‘The Respondent sid he did not intend to be disruptive, undignified or
<iscourteous, T-60, and that he did not seek to avoid appointments by the Court after his
‘motions were denied, T-60. As he did not expect his withdrawal motions tobe granted,
‘the Respondent said he also asked for continuances and for documents in each case. T-
0-61

‘The Respondent said his concern was that his clients be given proper
‘representation, he apologized for any improper tone in his correspondence, and said he
‘meant no disrespect. T-62.

‘The Respondent conceded that he had handled five matters in Family Court, and
that in cach ofthese cases he sought tobe relieved from appointment. T-63. fn fact, in
all seven matters in which he received a Family Court appointment, the Respondent
‘vote the Court seeking to withdraw. T-67.

‘The Respondent said that he prepared adequately for the cases he completed, end.
id “the est I could forthe client” 1-68-69.

‘The Respondent acknowledged thatthe Family Court appointments all involved
indigent clients. T-72-73. Once the Family Court has denied the Respondent's motion
to withdraw as counsel, the Respondent said, he meets with the client and “I disclose my
background, my experience, and if te issue is something I've never dealt within these

18
three particular appointments I say Ihave no experience [for example] T never
represented anyone with seven felony count, so Tel them that.” 1:73.

‘The Respondent said he considers the matter in each cas, but “t have no practice
{in Family Court and never have." 1-75. The Respondent said that if he were appointed
by the Family Court “to a case involving business transactional work, evaluation work,”
he could proceed in Family Court without asking o be relieved of his appointment. The
Respondent said that he understands child suppor is “complicated,” but he would be
“comfortable doing something like that" 7-76,

“The Respondent said tht in hindsight, he would change anything in his leer tat
‘was perosived as “improper tone.” 1-76.

‘The Respondent conceded that he has gained some Family Court experience by
sezving five of his appointments to completion. 1-77. Some ofthe appointments were
completed before the three cases at issue here. T-79-80. However, he sai, “I've not had
coe where it was the exact same issue.” T-78.

‘The Respondent said that he doesnot tigate in cours, that his work is
‘commercial or business transactional. T-82, He acknowledged, however, that he was
lead counsel in a classaction suit ia Superior Court against Blue CroswBlue Shield and
‘that he did most ofthe work inthe cae, including an appeal tothe Supreme Court, T-42-
43, When aiked by ODC ie ever advised his classaction client that he was not a
litigator and didnot ordinarily practice in Superior Coun, the Respondent sald he
believed he did, but he was very comfortable withthe substantive jsucs in that case, T-
43. The Respondent agreed that in addition to having Me. Bayard as co-counsel in the

9
lass action, he sought the assistance of the public defender, and he knew he could get
‘ep from other attomeys when he needed it in tigation. T-£3.
COUNT ONE: The Panel docs not find that Respondent Knowingly Disobeved an
‘Oblization under the Rules of Family Court in Violation of Rule 3.4 (c),

‘The Pane! finds that ODC did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that
‘the Respondent refused to accept the appointments in the January and March 2011
‘matters (ODC does not argue that Respondent refused to accept the Novernber 2009
‘=ppointment, as the Respondent ultimately represented the client in that case), There is
‘certainly a good argument thatthe Respondent constructively refused the appointments,
by presenting his abilities as an attorney in such a poor light to his clients us to cause
them to seek other representation, Technically (albeit weakly inthe face of the rest of
the Respondent's correspondence with the Court), the Respondent requested
‘documentation and continuances in both cases, « nominal sign of his willingness to
proceod. The documentation and continuance requests appear insincere at best when
‘coupled with the Respondent's demand that the Court put Yon the record” thatthe Court
insisted on the Respondent's appointment despite his lack of experience and despite the
clients’ wishes, and where, in March 2011, the Respondent suggested the Court was
involved in a possible conflict itself,

‘The Respondent's conduct falls more clearly under other rule violations, and the

‘Panel does not find, by lear and convincing evidence, a violation of Rule 3.4(¢).
COUNT TWO: The Pane! Finds the Respondent Violated Rule 3.5 (d) by Engaging
in Conduct Intended to Disrupt Tribunal and Ensasing in Undisnified or
Discourteous Conduct That is Degrading toa Tribunal,

The Panel finds the ODC established by clear and convincing evidence thatthe
Respondent engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tibunal, and in undignified or
<iscourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal,

1, The November 24,2008, Appointment

In his December 20, 2009, letter (Exhibit 3 to Judge Henriksen seeking to be
‘excused from his November 24, 2009 Appointment (Exhibit 2), the Respondent states:

1 Your Honor stil requires that represent [,Ineapectfilly request thatthe Court
disclose to [] the following:

1. Mr. Murray informed the Court that his practice is primarily devoted to
corporate/etity matters.

». Mr. Murray informed the Court that he believes (J's legal needs, in this matte,
‘would best be served by counsel experienced...

. Mr. Murray informed the Court that he believes itis in (}s best interest to have
‘counsel with specific experience.

4. Mr. Murray asked the Cour, on behalf of [that counsel with experience..be
appointed,

«. Noting the above disclosures by Mr. Murray, the Court nonetheless requires,
‘Mr. Murray to represent [in this matter.

Please note that I will be out-of-state and unavailable forthe next couple of
‘weeks.

By this first letter, the Respondent already ignored the Court's provision inthe
11/24/09 Appointment Letter thatthe Respondent himself could obtain substiute
‘counsel. Atthe same time he is atempting to put back on the Court the burden of
finding alternate counsel, the Respondent makes the unsubtle request jn advance ofthe

an
‘Court's ruling that if the Court persists in appointing him, the Court should put on the
record and disclose tothe client thatthe Respondent does not have the proper experience
‘or background, and that while the Respondent asked the Court to appoint someone else,
the Court nonetheless made the Respondent represent the client.

‘The Court denied the Respondent's request on January 4, 2009 (Exhibit 4), a the
Respondent was presumed to be admitted in Delaware (and thus subject to mandatory
appointment). The Court pointed out that other atiomeys who do not practice family or
trial law have served, in the “long tradition of the Delaware Bar,” and have found the
Work gratifying, although two atiomeys surrendered their license rather than be subject to
‘mandatory appointment. The Court noted tht the Respondent could find an attorey
‘who would serve as substitute counsel fora fee, and the Court even suggested two
atorneys (Ms. Oland and Mr. Vanderslice), who have accepted such cases before.

‘The Respondent never contacted either attorney suggested by the Court. Instead,
bbe wrote the Court two months later, on March 4, 2010 (Exhibit 5), saying, inter alla:

«I mistakenly thought Your Honor would understand thet the purpose of my
December 20, 2009 leter was to protec []

{respect Your Honors opinion, but a gustan portion of Your Honors tris
ot elevan o protecting () in Faily Court For

Stalzmenis tht other lwyers have (=) “found the work tobe very grating” and
(©) “arciouly accepted Der appointments” are not germane fo protecting ()

..you are assigning a matter to counsel inexperienced with Family Court matters
‘who does not have the time nor the resoures...10 properly represent [].

| will make the same disclosures to [], providing him... a copy of,..my letter
+. your reply, tis letter, and ...any response...

[Kappears hat Your Honor docs not know whether am admited to practice in
Delaware “with the presumption tht you have been admited to practice before
‘be Delaware baz” ~ Lam.
Lastly, Your Honor references a tradition. Perhaps in your reference to tradition,
‘Your Honor hus oversimplified (1's Family Cour interests.

 

‘Thus, not getting the answer he wanted in his first attempt, and still ignoring his

option to obtain substnae counse, the Respondent tells the Court that ifthe Court won't
tel the cient thatthe Respondent is not competent to represent the client, the Respondent
‘willl the cient himself

Interestingly, ina leer where the Respondent characterizes the Court's words as
““melevant” and “not germane,” the Respondent offers the following ina footnote:

Although Ihave very limited experience with Your Honor (another reason why {)
should have an experienced Family Court attorney), Your Honor may recall. a

 

‘ideas epssented by counsel, 1 subited a postconviction tro Your
Honer identifying these and other facts. Your Honor subseauently recognized his
imimake and vacatedreversed the judgment.

‘The above footnote is not “relevant” to the Respondent's attempt to be excused,
‘onthe basi of lack of experience, time or resources, from representing a client pursuant
‘the November 2009 appointment, and can only serve to embarrass of insult the Judge.
Further, the Respondent's argument that his “very limited experience with Your Honor”

‘another reason why he should be excused is baseless. The fact that an attomey has not
‘appeared before particular judge, or has only “limited experience” before him, does not
‘mean the attorney is not competent to appear. Otherwise, no attomey would ever appear

before any judge, because there would be no opportunity for a frst appearance,

B
‘The Respondent offers his own aphorisms, tothe same Judge he accused of
“oversimplfying” this matter
Even though a foot surgeon and brain surgeon are both doctors, you would not
‘want a foot surgeon to perform your brain surgery. The elementary principle —if
you don’t know it, don’t do it ~ should apply. For {)s protection, a business
lawyer who does not practice family law should not be representing [] in Family
Court.
‘2.The January 3.2011, Appointment
Pursuant to the January 3,201, Appointment Letter (Exhibit 7), the Respondent
again was afforded the opportunity to designate another attomey to represext the
defendant. Instead of accepting the Appointment or getting someone else to take the
case, the Respondent wrote Commissioner Wilson on January 10, 2011 (Exhibit 8),
saying:
«1am a solo-practitioner that does not have the resources nor the time to
properly represent [] in this Family Court criminal matter. Iam not available, nor
could T be prepared for this Trial, on January 1

{If Your Honor stil requires that I represent [} I respectfully request that) the
record reflect, and (i), the Court disclose to [] the following:

 

‘+ Mr. Murry informed the Court that his practice is primarily
evoted to corporate...

‘+ Mr, Murray informed the Court that he has no experience.

Mr. Murray informed the Court that he believes. best
Inet th] be represented by cour hat hs expos

© Mr, Murray asked the Court on behalf of (), that counsel with
‘experience...be appointed.

‘The Cour, through Commissioner Holloway, responded on January 12, 2011
(Exhibit 9), denying Respondent's motion to withdraw, noting that the Respondent could

  

4
“ind someone to substitute fr him,” and “i} more time is needed, mey request
continuance.”

Ignoring the second suggestion from the Court in this appointment tha the
Respondent could get substitute counsel, the Respondent instead wrote Commissioner
Holloway on January 13, 2011 (Exhibit 13). Apparently, si
‘Court ~ that if the Court would not excuse him tht he would tel his client tht the Court

hi veiled threat tothe

 

‘was appointing ineffective counsel did not workin the 2009 appointment, the
Respondent made good on that in 2011:

1 spoke with [lient's mother). | dislosed that my practice is primarily devoted
to business...and that Ihave no experience representing any partyin a (8)
criminal matter, or (b) Family Court criminal matter with allegations of uslaweul
sexual contact third degree.

 

Ctinepeees cote whet panne emetic
matter. on bea fer on respect mua hat Your Hono vide

 

[Client's mother] would specifically like to know how itis in the best
interest of her minor child for Your Honor to appoint an attorney with no
‘experience...? I will provide a copy of any response Your Honor provides
to [client and his mother).

{Client and his mother] request that an experienced Family Court
practtione...represent him.

1 appears that in his efforts to “disclose” his situation to his client's mother, the
Respondent neglected to tell her thatthe Respondent was fre to obtain substitute
“experienced” counsel on her son's behalf, and free to request a continuance. Rather, he

2s
caused the client and his mother to believe that the Court had callously appointed, with
‘no recourse, incompetent counsel, onthe eve of tril.

Tin footnote, the Respondent repeats, verbatim, for Commissioner Holloway the
‘aphorism he tried out on Judge Henriksen previously:

Even though a foot surgeon and brain surgeon are both doctors, you would not

Joudootinow gd taei-ouapsyo nme Pinsef

Given the untenable situation in which the Court was placed by the Respondent's
communications tothe Court, te client and the client's mother, the Court rescheduled
‘the case and appointed alternate counsel.
3. The March 11,2011, Appointment

‘Once again, the Respondent was advised inthe Appointment Lete (Exhibit 15,
‘Appointment by Chief Judge Kun that he could designate altemate counsel. Instead,
‘the Respondent seat a March 16,2011, letter (Exhibit 16) to Judge Henriksen, who was
to preside over the matter, outlining essentially the same litany relating tothe
Respondent's business law focus and lack of Family Court experience that the
Respondent sent Judge Henriksen in 2010 and the Commissioners in 2011. Again, rather
‘han accepting the appointment or obtaining substitute counsel, the Respondent stated:

 

|1do not have the resources nor the time to properly represent [] in this Family
Court Criminal Matter. 1am not available on March 17, 2011, and I could not be
‘prepared for this matter with the short notice given.

If Your Honor stl requires that represent [] I espectfully request that () the
record reflect, and (i) the Court disclose to[) the following:

Mr. Murray informed the Cour that his practice is primarily devoted
to,. business

 

Mr. Murray informed the Cour that he has no experience...
‘Mr. Murray informed the Court that be believes itis in ['s best interest that [] be
‘represented by counsel that has experience...

‘Mr, Murray asked the Cour, on bebalf of [that counsel with experience... be
‘appointed.

‘As Your Honor may be aware, Commissioner Holloway filed a complaint with
‘the ODC... and] submitted letters to the ODC that she indicates you gave hes.

--Altbough I do not know the extent of your involvement with the ODC mater, 1
‘will inform (] of Your Honor’s participation. [} can then consider this information
sand determine its relevance. He may conclude thet Your Honor's role in the ODC
‘matter is evidence of a conflict.

1 do not believe itis () inthe best interest of [] for me to represent him before

‘Your Honor, and/or (i) appropriate for meto appear in Family Court before Your
Honor while the ODC’s evaluation is pending.

 

Telieve the Court will want o avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

‘Asis my practice, Iwill disclose o[] my ares of expertise and my lack of
experience (in his case, Ihave no experince).

Apparently the Respondent participated in an office conference with Chief Judge
‘Kul the next day, March 17, 2011. Following the office conference, the Respondent
‘wrote his client's mother on March 23, 2011 Exhibit 17):
| disclosed to you and your son tat Iam a business transsctional lawyer... [also
disclosed that Ihave no experience with the Family Court (i) legal, and (i)
‘procedural issues confronting your son...

Inthe office conference with Chief Judge Kuhn, I made the same disclosures and
requested that counsel with experience...be appointed.

[informed you that Chief Judge Kuhn denied my request to withdraw. Chief
Judge Kuhn adsed that she would assign a awyer to work with me on your son's
case.

You indicated that you were going to waite the Court to express your concerns.

informed you that as of March 22, 2011, Thad not heard from Chief Judge Kuhn
with respect to the lawyer she was gong to have work with me on this ease.

n
‘On March 23, 2011, I received s call ...that Bruce Rogers, Esquire will serve as

‘my mentor on your ease. Ido not know the exact extent of his involvement a8 &

mentor.

By his communication with the client's mother (and hia continued omission tothe
‘other that it isthe Respondents task, upon appointment, to obtain substitute counsel),
‘the Respondent undermines the client's faith inthe Respondent's abilities and in the
Courts integrity, and encourages the client's mother to take her conceras (ones he, in
fact, generated) othe Court,

‘Apparently, the Respondent's communication with th client's mother achieved
the Respondent's desired result unsuccessful in getting the Court to change its mind,
the Respondent succeeded by causing the mother of an indigent client to obtain private
representation herself. The Respondent's next lett sto Chef Judge Kula, on March
30, 2011 (Exhibit

In my leter dated March 16, 2011, I outlined the reasons why (j) the defendant

should have an experienced Family Court lawyer representing him...and (i) why
| should be permitted to withdraw.

 

(On March 17, 2011, I disclosed to [] and his mother my azeas of expertise andthe
fact that I do not have any experience with the Family Court legal and procedural
issues confronting her son...

‘informed (] and her son that during the office conference on March 17, 2011,
‘Your Honor denied my request..to have counsel withthe requisite experience
‘represent [] and that you denied my motion to withdraw.

On March 2, 2011, I received a call fom (clients mother), ..Duing our
telephone converstion.1 reminded elien's mother] that You ionor was going
to assign someone to work with me on her soa's case. Tinformed [client's
smother tha as of March 22,2011, you had not yet bad the opportunity to asign
another lawyer to work with me.

(On March 23, 2011.1 was informed that you spoke to Bruce Rogers, Esq, and
that you asked him fo serve as my mentor...Please note that...there is a letter
from Mr. Rogers dated March 8, 2011, indicating that he had a conflict inthe
[client's] mater.

 

8
| called [client's mother] on March 28,2011... [Client's mother informed me
daring that phone cal that she retained Eric Mooney, Esquire to represeat her soa.
‘She indicated that she was releasing me from responsibility with respect to her,
son’s defense nd thet I did not need to appear on March 31, 2011.

facceptable to Your Honor, please allow this as notice of () substitution of
‘counsel and (ji) my termination of the attomey-client relationship with []

The Pane! finds that through the language and tenor of the Respondent's
‘communications withthe Court and with his liens, his persistent efforts to be excused
‘fom his appointments, and his failure to aval himself ofthe opportunity to obtain
subatie counsel, the Respondent's ations were disruptive to the ibunal, and tht the
‘Respondent engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct, in violation of Rule 3.5(8).
COUNT THREE: The Pane! Finds the Respondent Sought to Avold Appointment

(A ewer toaw
sppointment bye tribunal to representa person except for good camse-")

‘The Pane finds thatthe ODC established by clear and convincing evidence that
‘the Respondent sought to avoid appointment by the Family Court on three occasions (the
‘November 2008, January 2011, and March 2011 appointment), without good cause a
Violation of Rule 62. The Respondent admits tht in each ofthe seven times he was
appointed bythe Family Court, he requested to withdrew fom his appointment. The
Respondent stated that he did not seek to avoid appointments as alleged by ODC (“By
continuously seeking to avoid appointment by the Family Court after the Court denied his
‘motions to withdraw as counsel”, in hat he di not renew or refile motions ater his
inal motions to withdraw, The Pane! finds that in these three cases, he sought to avoid
‘sppoiniment by a wibunal, He sought to avoid ll thre ofthe appointments at issue: he
‘knew he was subject to mandatory appointment but requested to withdraw, even though

29
‘he believed his requests to withdraw would be denied, and he persisted in seeking to
avoid the appointments through his communications withthe Court and his liens, even
‘After his requests were denied. While he was given the option to obtain substitute
counsel in each case, he never availed himself of that option.

‘While the Respondent argues that he has no experience with various Family Court
‘matters, by the time he sought to avoid appointment in January and March of 2011, he
hhad already handled five different Family Court cases. His “modesty” about his Family
Court experience is disingenuous where, in one of his first Family Court cases, he
successfully obtained post-conviction relief ofa criminal matter for his client, where he
hhad not even represented her in the criminal ease. (Exhibit , page 2, footnote 2). His
four-and-a-half year representation as « guardian ad litem involved approximately nine
Family Court hearings, by the Respondent's testimony. T-40, He had also represented a
Family Cour client in May 2009 (Exhibit 1), and represented an adult with multiple
issues in a Family Court proceeding pursuant to the November 2009 appointment. 1-68.
He had also litigated a class-sction suit in Superior Court, through its appeal to the
‘Supreme Court. T-82-83.

[Every attorney begins at some point with no experience. Ifthe attomey declines
to represent clients from the very start because the attomey lacks experience, the attorney
Will never gain that experience and will never begin to practice law.

Each case brought to an attorney is unique, with new facts and new legal issues.
‘To decline each case where there isa new element would be to decline every case. ‘The
Family Court cannot grant every request to be excused from a mandatory appointment on
the basis that the attorney has never handled that particular case before, or everyone
‘would be excused (attomeys could argue they have handled three felony charges but not
four; assault first but not second; a case where a minor is 13, but not 14).

‘The Family Court's mandatory appointment process in Sussex County has been in
place for years. The Court appoints atiomeys from all areas of practice, on the esis that
sttomeys admitted to practice law in Delaware have a basic general competency inthe
law.

‘The Family Court offered, both in its appointment letters and in specific
‘communications withthe Respondent, the option for the Respondent to seek substitute
counsel. In January 2010, the Court named two kttomeys who the Court believed might
‘be willing to undertake such representation, Exhibit 4. The Respondent never contacted
citer ofthe attorneys suggested by the Cour, but instead sent What amounts toa form
letter stempting to place the burden back on the Family Court.

‘Examining Count Three (Violation of Rule 62, an attorney shall not seek to avoid,
appointment by a tribunal to representa person except for good cause), and each of the
‘three Court appointments in tur, i is illuminating to see what happened in each case ~
‘both the Respondent's request o withdraw as counsel for each matter, and the
‘communications that followed in his efforts to continue avoiding the appointments. The
following isan outline ofthe three appointments (Court's communications are in italics):

 

Exhibit2. 11/24/09, Judge Henriksen Appointment Letter to Respondent:

“You are hereby appointed to represent []..You may designate another member
of your firm to represent the person...”

Exhibit 3, 12/20/09, Respondent letter to Judge Henriksen (Emphasis supplied):

31
Kindly note that my practice is primarily devoted to corporatefetity matters,
business transactional matters and certain tax matters. (J's legal needs..would
best be served by counsel with experience in guardianship proceedings and with
‘counsel that has specific knowledge of the Family Court procedural and legal
issues confronting

tXour Honor sil requires that represent, reapssfullyrequst thatthe Court
algelose tothe following:
‘Mr. Marry informed the Court that his practice is przaily
<evoted to corporate entity mates.
, Mr. Marry informed the Cour that he believes thats legal
‘neods..would best be served by counsel experienced withthe
Family Court procedural and legal issues.
Mr, Marry informed the Cour that he believes itis in ()'s best,
interest to hnve counsel appointed with specific and significant
‘experince in handling petitions for guardianship...
Mr
requires Mr, Muray to repreaen(]inshis mater
(Mr. Murray also makes document requests forthe case].

Please note that I willbe out-of-state and unavailable forthe next couple of
weeks.

Exhibit 4. 1/4/10, Judge Henriksen letter to Respondent:

‘Wh he presumption that you have been admited to practice before the
Delaware Bar, must deny your request tobe relieved from your appoiniment. In
‘dition 1 do not intend o comply with ay ofthe other request in your letter.

We have several attorneys who do not practice family law, or any trial pe of
law, who have...accepted their appointment as part of the long tradition of the
Delaware Bar...We have had two attorneys surrender their license to practice
‘aw inthe State of Delaware rather than undertake this representation. Finally,
‘and another alternative you may wish to pursue i 0 contact attorneys Who
‘regularly deal inthis area who might be willing to substitute themselves as
‘counsel for you for a certain fee. I happen to know that Ashley Oland, Esquire
‘and Patrick Vanderslice, Esquire, have accepted cases from other attorneys such
1s yourself inthe past

‘4 rte, yo Cont xine represet [rem i fl fread

[Exhibit 5. 34/10 Respondent letter to Judge Henriksen:

32
8 substantial portion of Your Honor’ letter isnot relevant to protecting ().

| disclosed to you th my primary practice does not include any family law, and
‘that you are assigning a matter to counsel inexperienced with Family Court
_matiers who does not have the time nor the resources (Iam a solo practitioner) to
Properly represent ().

1 will make the same disclosures to

 

In sum, itis not fair o[] 10 point to [other attorneys or tradition] to support oF
justify Your Honor’s appointment of inexperienced counsel. [] should have an
‘experienced Family Court practioner representing him in Family Court.

‘Although {have very limited experience with Your Honor (another reason why ()
should have an experienced Family Court attorney), Your Honor may recall a
case... where Your Honor convicted an unrepresented 13 year old of afeloay (in
violation of her constitutional right o counsel) stating on the record, incorrectly,
thatthe 13 year old was represented by counsel. I submitted a post-conviction
letter to Your Honor identifying these and other facts. Your Honor subsequently
recognized his mistake and vacated/reversed the judgment.

(Respondent ultimately handled this case to conclusion.)

(tts interesting to note thatthe Respondent, seeking o avoid appointment by
pleading inexpericace in guardianship matter, inexperience in Family Court and
Inexpesience before the tral judge, had apparently “schooled” the same judge previously
cn constitutional, criminal, and Family Court procedure regarding the prior Family Court
felony case of a minor for whom the Respondent served as a gussian in Family Court)
2, The January 3,2011, Appointment
Exhibit 7, 1/3/11, Commissioner Wilson Appointment Letter to Respondent:
You are hereby appointed to represent..a juvenile alleged delinquent..Trial
Date: Jarnuary 18, 2011... You may designate another member of your firm 0
represent the person specified by notification to the party and tothe Court
Exhibit 8. 1/10/11, Respondent “faxed” letter to Commissioner Wilson:

Thave no experience in juvenile delinquent and/or juvenile criminal matters. My
‘practice is primarily devoted to corporateletity matters and business transactional
mates.

2
(D's legal needs, in this mater, would best be served by counsel that has specific
experience with (a criminal mater, (b) cases involving allegations of “unlawful
sexual contact third”, and (¢) the Family Court procedural and substantive issues
‘conftoating(]..

ama solo-pracitioner that does not have the resources nor the time to properly
‘represent ]. 1am not available, nor could Ibe prepared for this Trial, on January
18,2011 at 9:00am.

If Your Honor still require that I represen [], I respectfully request tat () the
‘record reflect, and (jd) the Court disclose to [] the following:

‘a. Mr. Murray informed the Court that his practice is primarily devoted
‘0 comporate...matters.

'. Mr. Murray informed the Court that he has no experience with
‘defending anyone in a Family Court criminal case, and that he has
never defended anyone charged with “Unlawful Sexual Contact
Third”

Mr. Murray informed the Court that he has no experience in juvenile
<elinguent... mater...

4. Mr. Murray informed the Court that he believes itis in (}'s best
interest that (] be represented by counsel that has experience...

. Mr. Murray asked the Court, on behalf of (), that counsel with
experience with these types of matters be appointed.

‘Request to Withdraw as Counse! - For the above stated reasons, I request tat I be
‘Permitted to withdraw as counsel

Exhibit 9. 1/12/11, Commissioner Holloway “faxed” letter to Respondent:
‘Notes: Motion to withdraw denied...1/12/11 Motion denied — Mr. Murray may
find someone to substitute for him ~ Commissioner Holloway. Ifmore time is
needed, may request continuance.

Exhibit 10, 1/13/11, Respondent “faxed" leter to Commissioner Holloway:

Jay eter aad Janay 10, 201, Lule he ene why te dtd)

 

. fet ot You ts ; ji
January 12, 2011... I spoke with {client's mother] on January 13, 2011...
Aiselosed to [client's mother] that my practice is primarily devoted to busines...
and that Ihave no experience representing any party ina (a) criminal matter, or
(©) Family Court criminal matter involving allegations of unlawful sexual contact
third degree,
‘Dus to the very limited time (as a result of the Family Court’s late notice of
sppointmen}) Lead i len smother my eter o Your Honor died Janay

 

{Client's mother] would specifically like to know how it sin the best intrest of
‘eciminor child for Your Honor to appoint an atiomey with no experience...

{Client's mother] and [] request that an experienced Family Court
‘Practitioner. represent his...

1 request a thirty day continuance.
[Exhibit 11, 1/14/11 Family Court fx to Respondent
“Reschedule, re-appoint.”
3. The March 11,2011 Appointment
[Exhibit 15. 3/11/11, Chief Judge Kuhn Appointment Letter to Respondent:
You are hereby appointed to represent [], a juvenile alleged delinquent.
Arraignment for Gun Court is scheduded for Thursday, March 17, 2011... You
‘may designaie another member of your firm to represent the person specified...
Exhibit 16, 3/16/11, Respondent faxed letter to Judge Henriksen:
‘understand this matter is before Your Honor... I received a 26-page fax on
March 16, 2011 about an arraignment for [] on March 17,2011... The fax
contained 17 different documents. 1 am not familiar with a substantial majority of
the documents,
Disclosure to Protect [7
{have never represented a party charged with the referenced crimes... My
practice is primarily devoted to corporatefetity matters and business transactional

‘matters. (['s legal needs in this matter, are best served by counsel that has
specific experience.

35
am a solo- practitioner. Ido not have the resources nor the time to properly
‘represent [] in this Family Court Criminal Matter. Iam not available on March
17, 2011, and T could not be prepared for this matter with the short notice given.

Your Hooor sil requires that I represent (I respectfully request that () the
record reflect, and (ji) the Cour disclose to []:
‘Mr. Murray informed the Court that his practice is primarily devoted
to ..business..
Mr. Murray informed the Cour that he has no experience with
defending anyone ina Family Court gun case...
Mr. Murray informed the Court that he has no experience with the
legal issues confronting (..
4. Mr. Murray informed the Court that he believes iti in )'s best,
interest that (]be represented by counsel that has experience...
Mr. Murmy asked the Court, on behlf of [that counsel with
‘experience with ()'s legal issues be appointed.

 

‘As Your Honor may be aware, Commissioner Holloway filed an ODC complaint
against me... {and] submitted leters i the ODC that she indicates you gave her...
‘my practice isto provide the client with complete information, so thatthe client
can make informed decisions. Although Ido not know the extent of your
involvement in the ODC mater, I will inform [} of Your Honor's participation. ()
an then consider this information and determine its relevance. He may conclude
that Your Honor’s role inthe ODC matter is evidence of a conflict.

‘Under these circumstances, I donot believe itis 1) in the best interest of [] for me
to represent him before Your Honor, and/or (i) appropriate for me to appear in
Family Court or before Your Honor while the ODC’s evaluation is pending,

{believe the Court will want to avoid even the appesrance of conflict.
‘Request to Withdraw as Counsel

‘As ismy practice, wil disclose to [ my areas of expertise and my lack of
‘experience (in this case, Ihave no experience) with the Family Court criminal
issues... respectfully submit that ths appointment isnot inthe best interest ofthe
‘minox...Fo 1s proection..1 request that be permed to withdraw as counsel
(Respondeat also asks for 30 day contimance, makes a document request,
suggests unnamed “altemate way” to asst the Court “fer the ODC mater is
resolved,” end dizecs al future correspondence from the Court to Respondent's
‘counsel in the ODC matter).

Exhibit 17. 3/23/11, Respondent to Client's mother:

6
1 disclosed to you and your son that Iam a business transactional lawyer..1 also
disclosed that Ihave no experience with the Family Court ...issues confronting
‘your son; and that I have no experience trying a Gun Cour case.

In the office conference with Chief Judge Kuhn, I made the same disclosures and
‘requested that counsel with experience...be appointed.

‘informed you that Chief Judge Kun denied my request to withdraw. Chief
Judge Kulbn added that she would assign a lawyer to work with me on your son's
case,

‘On March 22,2011, you called indicating that you spoke with someone atthe
Family Court sbout having other counsel appointed... You indicted that you
were going to write the Court to express your concerss. Yinformed you thet as of
March 22, 2011, I had not hear from Chief Judge Kuhn with respect to the
lawyer she was going to have work with me...

‘On March 23, 2011, Treceived a call ..that Bruce Rogers, Esquire will serve as
‘my mentor on your case. Ido not know the exact extent of his involvement as a
‘mentor... (Respondent also asks for documents and statements forthe case).

Exhibit 18 330/11, Respondent to Chief Judge Kuhn:

«--In my letter dated March 16,201 1, [outlined the reasons why the defendant (})
should have an experienced Family Court lawyer representing him...and (i) why
I should be permitted to withdraw as counsel

‘On March 17, 2011, I disclosed to (] and his mother my areas of expertise and the
fact that I do not have any experience with the Family Court legal and procedural
issues confronting her son. I alo disclosed to [] and his mother that I have no
‘experience trying a Gun Court case.

‘informed [client's mother] and her son that during the office conference on
March 17,2011, Your Honor denied my reques...to have counsel withthe
requisite experience represent (] and that you denied my motion to withdraw.

als informed (] thet you were going to assign counsel..to work with me.

 

brought to Your Honor's attention «conflict issue connected with a pending,
‘ODC matter...

(On March 22, 2011, I received a call from (client's mother]. She indicted that
she spoke with someone atthe Court about having other counsel appointed... 1
‘reminded (} that Your Honor was going to assign someone to work with me...
‘informed [] that as of March 22, 2011, you had not yet had the opportunity to
‘assign another lawyer to work with me,

”
‘On March 23, 2011... was informed tha... Bruce A. Rogers, Esquire... {would}
serve as my mentor. Pleese note that inthe documents Irecived...be had a
conflict in the (] mate.

‘ealled [client's motber] on March 28,2011. ... {Client's mother] informed me
tt she retained Eric Mooney, Esquire, to represent her son. She indicated tht
se was releasing me from responsibiliy... If acceptable to Your Honor, please
allow this s notice of () substitution of counsel, and (i) my termination of the
atiomey-client relationship wit (.
‘Thus, inal three appointments a issue inthis ODC complaint, the Court
sppointed the Respondent, giving him the option to obtain substitute counsel. The

Respondent instead asked the Court to be allowed to withdraw as counsel. The Court

 

<enied the Respondent's request. The Respondent wrote the Cour, asking thatthe Court
state onthe record and to the client thatthe Court was appointing essentially, ineffective
counsel. In two of the cases where the Court stil dd not do as the Respondent wished,
‘the Respondent contacted the client and told the cient that he was, essentially, wrong for
the part, but the Court was going to make him, an inexperienced unskilled attorney,
represent the client anyway, and then told the Court what he told his client. In one case
‘a indigent client's mother retained private counsel. In each case the Respondent sought
to.void the appointment, and persisted after his motion was denied. His conduct
violates Rule 62.

38
The ODC established by clear and convincing evidence tha the Respondent
‘engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 84
(@. The Respondent wasted judicial resources in continuing to request to withdraw
from the appointments, where the Respondeat knew the Family Court could appoint him
‘under the Rules; where the Respondent felt his motions to withdraw were futile; nd,
‘once the Court denied his requests, where the Respondent continued to press the issue
‘with the Court through leso-than-subte form letters asking the Court to put “onthe
record” and disclose tothe client the fact that he should not be appointed but the Court
was appointing him anyway; by causing his clients to betieve that he could not represent
them, that they needed other counsel, and thatthe Court refused to consider what was in
‘ther best interests; and by failing o obtain substitute counsel, or even contact the two
stiomeys whose names were provided by the Court fr ust that purpose.

“To the extent the Court had to appoint other counsel inthe January 2011 matter it
‘was a waste ofthe Court's time to find and sppoint a second attomey tothe cas, and of
the other attomey’s time; that attomey could have served in another conflict mater for
nother indigent client,

‘The Respondent, in pressing the issue with his clients and the Chief Judge of
Family Cour, necessitated repeated telephone calls and meetings which could otherwise
Ihave been avoided.

In each case, the Respondent had the express option, when appointed by the
Court, to obiain substitute counse! himself. Had he done so, or had he accepted the
sppointments from which he believed he would not be excused, no judicial resources
‘would have been wasted. Instead, the Respondent never made a rel effort to obtain
substitute counsel, and ignored the 2009 Family Court suggestion of two atomeys who
‘might be willing to serve. The Respondent chose instead in each of these three cases to
‘sead at least two letters to the Court arguing why he should be relieved ofthe
‘appointments, necessitating further time to consider and respond to the Respondent's
‘tempts to avoid the appointments, and to deal wit the clients understandably alarmed
by the Respondents presentation oftheir situation. In two out ofthe thre cases, the
‘Respondent ultimately avoided appointment, by presenting himself and the Court, tothe
client in such an unpalatable light that in one case the Court appointed alternate counsel,
snd in the other te client's mother sought private counsel.
Recommendation of Sanctions

Having concluded tht the Respondent violated Rules 3.5 (4), 62 and 84 (8) of
the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct, the Pane! reconvened on March 8, 2012, to
bear evidence and legal argument from counsel on appropriate sanctions. The
Respondent prepared «brief, which he submitted through counsel on March 7, 2012
(Respondent's Pre-Hearing Memorandum").

‘Atthe March 8, 2012, hearing, counsel for ODC argued asa preliminary matter
‘hat the Respondent's pre-hearing memorandum reargued the existence of violations on
‘hich the Board had already ruled, and tha only pages 4 and 5 addressed sanctions
arguments. ODC further argued that there was no sanctions argument in the
Respondent's memorandum for Counts Il and TV of the ODC complaint.

[No witnesses testified during the sanctions portion ofthe hearing,

‘ODC argued that the Board should impose “no less than a pubic reprimand,”
March 8 Sanctions hearing transcript pages 4-5 (bereinafter, e.g, $-4-5). ODC applied
‘the four factors ofthe ABA standards (respondent's mental state — intentional, with
‘knowledge, of negligent; the real or potential injury to clients or third parties; the nature
‘ofthe violations; and aggravating/mitigating circumstances). ODC argued thatthe
‘Board already found the Respondent's conduct was intended to disrupt the tribunal and
‘was discourcous and degrading, thus establishing thatthe Respondent acted
intentionally, and thatthe Respondent's conduct was “knowing” in that he knew or
should have known the effect of his comespondence, since his requests had been denied
Previously. $8,

‘ODC argued thatthe Respondent's conduct violated his ethical duties tothe legal
system and the legal profession, citing ABA standards 6.0 (expectations to abide by legal
‘les and refrain from interfering with judicial process), 6.2 (sanction appropriate for
failure to obey obligation under rules of « tribunal), 6.22 (suspension appropriate for
‘knowing violation of court order or rule and...potential interference with legal
Proceeding), 6.23 (reprimand appropriate for negligent failure to comply with court
ordevrule...causing potential interference with legal proceeding, 7.0 (ethical duty othe
profession) and 7.3 (reprimand appropriate for violation of duty tothe profession). $-9.

‘ODC argued thatthe Respondent's multiple offenses and refusal to acknowledge
the wrongful nature ofthe conduc, as well as his substantial experience (Respondent
‘sdmitted to the Bar in 1995) were aggravating factors. ODC took issue with the
‘mitigating factors cited in the Respondent's brief (inexperience in family law, character
‘nd reputation, and remorse), arguing “inexperience” is withthe general practice of law,
not a specific are (in mitigating factors under 9.32 ofthe ABA Standards); that there was
‘no character testimony offered inthis case; and thatthe Board should assess the

41
Respondent's testimony from the violations hearing to determine if he demonstrated any
remorse.

ODC offered four cases in support ofits recommendation: In the mattcr of
‘Abbot, Del, Supr., 925 A. 24 482 (2007) (public reprimand appropriate for undignified,
<iscourteous and degrading statements against opposing counsel and the Court in
Violation of 3.5(4) and 8.4 (4); Inthe matter of Rammunno, Del. Supr., 625 A. 24248
(1993) (public reprimand for violation of what is now 3.5 (8), insulting and vulgar
language to opposing counsel and the Court); Inthe matter of Guy, Del. Supr., No. 138,
1995 (1995) (public reprimand for discourteous, degrading and disrespectful remarks
about the Court); and Hawkins v. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 988 S. W. 2d
‘927 (Tex. App. ~ El Paso, 1999) (suspension for disobeying an order to represent an
indigent client, “snide letters tothe tral cour” and failure to communicate with lien).

‘DC distinguished the cass cited by the Respondent in briefing: Board Case No.
42-1995) (private admonition fora single rule violation, one matter); Board Case Nos.
46-2006, 26-2007) (different conduct}; ODC File No. 2011-0305 (different rules and
ifferent underlying conduct).

‘ODC argues thatthe Respondent's tone and language in his letters and his
‘continuous requests to withdraw, even when he did not expect the requests to be granted,
{in three matters before the Board (and seven matters to which the Respondent testified),
‘support the imposition of “no less than a public reprimand.”

‘The Respondent, through counsel, argued that the Respondent's conduct is far
Jess egregious than that in Rammunno, in that it was not an appearance in court before a
‘tribunal but written motions; they were not undignified or discourteous, but intended to

2
‘protect is clients’ rights to have effective counsel; and be expressed regret if hs tone
‘was misperceived.

Regarding Rule 6.2 (Accepting sppointments), Respondent points out there is n0
Delaware precedent for sanctions, and argues that Hawkins, the Texas cas, is
isingushable in thatthe Texas lawyer undertook representation and stopped in the
‘middle ofthat representation. Respondent argued he “represented al of his appointed
‘cats in Family Cour... except...where he represented the client until private counsel
‘was retained andthe case where ...Mr. Muray was relieved ofthe appointment.” $-29.
[Respondent argues that in each case he asked for more experienced counsel, and knowing
his request would be denied, for more time. Respondent argues that “he continues to
believe inthe prncipe..that even indigent clients are entitled to experienced counsel,
particularly in. his case two serious criminal matters. $-29-30,

‘Respondent denied attempting to “sabotage the appointment” and argued he was
‘making the application based on the same principle that he made previously. “He
continues to believe that its his obligation. ..1o make disclosure to his clients about his

 

«lack of skills and his... lack of experience because it's fundamental tothe relationship
‘between nwyers and clients....How that poisons the well he does not understand. .if be
‘were trying to avoid an appointment, he never would have asked for a continuance...” S-
3031.

Respondent argued, regarding Rule 84, that no harm othe elient or public
‘ccurred, and that if there was any harm, it was tothe administration of justice in Family
‘Court. Respondent argues that his disclosure “cannot be prejudicial tothe
‘dministation of justice, but, instead, is par ofthe administration of justice.” $-31.

a
ven if there was an 8.4 violation, Respondent argues, the only judicial resources
involved were a letter from Judge Heniksen, which Respondent argues includes a
“gratuitous shot” S-32 (presuming you're a member of the Delaware Bar”), and
Commissioner Southmayél's handwritten note granting a continuance and the
‘appointment of new counsel. The Respondent argued “That's nota great deal of judicial
resources.” $-32,

Arguing that the Respondent has already “been publicly embarrassed,” S-44, Mr.
‘Bayard argued thatthe Respondent should “not be a poster child for bad lawyer behavior
in Family Cour,” $-44-45, that he represented clients, that he believes in the principle of
effective representation, and that there was no financial injury, harm to the client, of harm.
to the public. The Respondent has no prior disciplinary record and cooperated with
‘one. s-48.

(Mr, Bayard distinguished the Abbott case as involving egregious behavior in
{insulting two tribunals and opposing counsel, and the Guy case as egregious behavior far
beyond any conduct onthe part of the Respondent. Mr. Bayard referred to the
Respondent's cited cases, for private admonitions, and argued thet the behavior in those
‘cases was more serious than those alleged in this case, in that they involved insulting
language (1995), lateness and incompetence (2007), and lying o the Court (2011). $-47.

Mr. Bayard suid that “Mr. Murray has been made painfully aware that any further
‘motions to withdraw will not be tolerated in Family Court and he will conform his
‘behavior accordingly. But he will continue inthe best traditions ofthe Deleware Barto
sdvocate zealously for his appointed clients. This he knows how to do.” $-49.
‘Respondent's counsel submitted a copy of Exhibit 6 eter from Judge Jones in
‘prior matter, commending the Respondent for service in a guardian ad Ittem case, over
four and a balf years, “in the highest tradition ofthe Delaware Bar.” $-49.

In response to questions from the panel, counsel forthe Respondent indicated that
‘conflict appointment arse inthe cases of indigent clits and in the 2011 case where &
‘liens mother hired a private attorney, said, “based on her discussion with Mr. Murray
‘and her understanding ofthe seriousness ofthe charges, she took it upon herself to retain
‘private counsel. How she raised the funds to do that, Idon't know.” $-51.

Counsel acknowledged thet Respondent had the option, in each court
sppoiniment, to find someone experienced to handle the cas... “if [Respondent] would
pay them. That's his option." $-S1-52.

(ODC said that if this had been one-time violation of 62 or 8.4 (4), it“‘probably
‘would have been not even a sanction iit was onetime and if it was just those two
things” $-S4. ODC argued that there are three different violations before the Board,
‘nd a total of seven times that the Respondent acknowiedged {seeking to withdraw as
counsel]. It was the manner, method and tone the Respondent used in the three cases, ia
his correspondence: “The letters, the more you read them, the more offensive they
‘become.” §-54-55. Since the Respondent did not expect tobe relieved of the
‘appointments, ODC asked what purpose he could have other than to disrupt the tribunal.
5-55. ODC pointed ous, in addition to the exchange of letters withthe Cour, a meeting
With Chief Judge Kuhn and several judges involved in correspondence. §-55.

‘ODC noted purpose “to eduette the public and the lawyers” and said maybe
[private admonition) would have been acceptable in tis case, but the addition ofthe 3.5,

48
(@ violations and the manner in which the cases were handled warrants a public
reprimand, $-55. Ms. Schwartz said, given the Respondent's pre-hearing memo and
‘counsel’ closing argument, “I don't think he gets i. And I don't believe that there's any
‘emorse in his ations.” $-56. ODC hoped the one of Respondent's correspondence
‘with the Court or personne! in the future would improve, bu that a public sanction is
‘warranted “not only to educate the bar, but also to sanction Mr. Murray.” $-56,

‘The Panel applies the four-part analysis ofthe ABA Standards for Imposing
‘Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) (“ABA Standards", looking fist tothe ethical
‘day violate the lawyer's mental state; the extent of actual or potential injury caused by
the nwyer's misconduct; and finally, whether there are aggravating or mitigating
iroumstances.

‘The Panel finds:

1. Ethical Duties Violated. The Respondent violated Rule 3.5 4), engaging in conduct
intended to disrupt a tribunal and engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is
‘degrading toa tribunal, in multiple pieces of correspondence with the Court during three
‘Family Court appointments (November 2009, January 2011, and March 2011). He
‘violated Rule 6.2, by seeking to avoid each of those appointments by the Family Cour.
He violated Rule 8.4 (, by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice, in connection withthe three Court appointments, The violation are of duties
‘owed tothe legal system (failure to obey an obligation under the rules ~ the obligation to
represeat a cient appointed by the Coun), and tothe legal profession.

2. Mental Sute, The Panel finds the Respondent knew of is obligation to represent an
sppointed client, and that he did not have a legally cognizable reason o be excused, but
he persisted in seeking to avoid appointment. Thus, he acted intentionally. He concedes
that he never took the Cour-approved alternatives avilable to him ~to obtain sbsttte
counsel, or, with the asitance of others, to inform himself suficiently to provide
capable representation, ashe id ina clas action Superior Court case. The Respondest
‘wrote his eorespondence with deliberation, and knew or should have known its effect,
particularly where his near-fonn eters had previously been unsuccessful.

3. Injury cused by Respondent's Misconduct While the clients in these thee cases
ultimately had representation (one by the Respondent), the family of one indigent client
{elt ith no choice but to raise funds to pay for private counsel, asa direct result of the
Respondent's actions. Judicial resources were wasted in resolving the issues created by
‘the Respondent's conduct.

Before applying th aggravating/nitgaing factor analysis, the Panel finds that
public reprimand would be appropriate. The Respondent was appointed, pursuant to the
Family Court mandstory appointment process, to represet clients on thre different
occasions, The Respondent was well aware ofthe appointment process and by his
‘testimony, also sought to avoid appointment on prior occasions. In each of the three
‘appointment letters at issue here, the Respondent was advised that he could obtain
subatitute counsel. He never made a serious effort to do so, but rather seat what
‘mounted to serial (and discouteous) form letters to the Cour, saying that he wa not
experienced that he didnot have the time or resources to serve, and that he was not
available, He ignored Judge Henriksen's offer of two attorneys who might be willing to
take the case. Rather, his leters tld the Coury in essence, that he wanted the Court

“put on the record” the fact tha the Respondent was incompetent but the Court was

47
‘insisting that he represent the client. His communications with the clients did asthe
‘Cour said, “poison the well”
4. Agaravating and Mitigating Factors.
A. Aggravating Factors
1. Prior disciplinary offenses. ‘There was no evidence ofa prior disciplinary
‘offense.
2. Patter of misconduct. The Panel finds the Respondent engaged in a pattern of
‘misconduct in the three Court appointments a issue.
3. Multiple offenses, The Pane! finds multiple offenses, relating tothe several
items of correspondence and communications within each ofthe three

appointments,
4, Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process. There is no evidence of this
factor.

6. Refusal. to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct. While the Respondent's
‘counsel argued that “to the extent thatthe tone of [Respondent's] letters is
perceived as inappropriate, he has on several occasions apologized” and
“expressed regret” $-27, counsel says that his client “continues to believe inthe
prineiple...that even indigent clients are entitled to experienced counsel

 

‘Sanctions $-29-30, and “continues to belive that it's his obligation to make
disclosure to his clients about his skills or lack of skills und his experience or lack
of experience... How that poisons the well he does not understand...” Sanctions
‘$31. Counsel sti the Respondent “has been made painfully aware that any
farther motions to withdraw would not be tolerated in Family Court and he will
‘conform his behavior accordingly. But he will continue i the best tditions of
‘the Delaware Barto advocate zealously for his appointed clients. This he knows
how to do." $48,

‘As ODC pointed out, the Respondent's slf-prepared pre-hearing memo
‘on sanctions spends as much effort challenging the Pane!'s findings of violation
(ot within the scope of briefing) as it does on addressing sanctions. The memo
so refers to numerous portions of the Respondent's comrespondence with Family
(Court (cited by ODC), isolating sentences to esk, “When is being honest,
considered discoureous or undignified?" and to state, “Ifa person says, I
disagree with what you said —it does not mean the person is being undignified or
Aiscourteous.” Pre-hearing memo, Exhibit J. The Respondent does not show
sincere remorse, perhaps because he sill does not believe he did anything wrong.

Iinhis testimony before the Panel, the Respondent sid that he does not
belive his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. T-61. He did
sy, "Tapologize for any improper tone in my correspondence, no disrespect was
‘ver intended.” 1-61-62. He later added,...chere’s not a eter that T [have]
‘written that I wouldn't change a seatence, «paragraph, take out words, add words,
| may have been inartful or clumsy with my words. I can tell you that there was
‘no intent tobe disrespectful” T-70.

‘The Respondent offers a nominal apology and speaks generally of regrets
in hindsight for “every letter he has writen,” but he does not appear to

49
 

{ound to bein violation of the rales, or even the discouresy of hs eters tothe
‘Court. The Panel is et withthe sense tht the Respondent, if appointed agtin,
‘would conduct himself ashe has before — not obtaining substitute counsel, not
seoking the assistance of others to help him repeseat an indigent client in need of
‘service, and communicating the Court in the same manner.

7. uloesabilty of vitim, The indigent clients for whom the Respondent was
appointed were vulnerable. The Respondent's conduct inthe March 11,2011,
sppointment caused the mother of an indigent client, for whom the Court had
‘pointed counsel, to believe she had no recourse but to find and pay fora
‘private attomey for her son.

‘8, ‘Substantial experience inthe practice of law, Respondent bas been & member of
the Bar since 1995, While the Respondent's primary practice is notin the area
‘of family law, the Respondent, by admission tothe Bar, éemonstrated a baste
‘general level of competency to practice law. Farther, before these appointments,
‘the Respondent had already served as Family Cour-appointed counsel in other
‘cases, including service in one Family Court matter for over four yeas. The
Respondent was fully aware of his obligations, and bis options, upon
appointment.

9. Restitution, This factor does not apply.

10 legal conduct. ncluding that involving the use of controlled substances, This
factor doesnot apply.

2. testes
1. Absence of Prix Disciplinary Reson. There is no prior disciplinary recor,

2. Absence of dishonest or scfish motive, Thee is no evidence of dishonest or
selfish motive.

3. Personal or emotional robiems. This factor does not apply.

4, Timely good fit effort to make resiution or restify consequences of
‘misconduct, This factor does not apply.

5. ullan fie disclosure to she disciplinary board, The Respondent was
cooperative with the disciplinary process.

6. Inexperiencs inthe practice of lw, See aggravating factor above. Respondeat
tus been a member ofthe Bar for 16 years and had some experience in Family
Court. He was free to obtain assistance from others, or to obtain substitute
‘counsel inthis cae. The Pane! does not consider this tobe a mitigating factor

7. Character or reputation. The Respondent did not offer any testimony at the
sanctions hearing a to character or reputation. Counsel referred to Exhibit 6,
Judge Jones’ 2010 letter thanking Respondent for his “crucial” service ina plot
Fanily Court case,

‘8. Physical disability. This factor does not apply.

9. Mental disability/chemica dependency, This factor dos not apply

10. Delay in disciplinary proceedings. This factor doesnot apply

11, Interim rehabilitation. This factor does not apply.

12 Imposition of other penalties or sanctions. This factor doesnot apply. (See
ssddendu).

st
13. Remorse While the Respondent stated an apology, be does not appear to
understand why his actions were subject o this disciplinary proceeding, and
‘lthough counsel said he would “conform his actions,” be doesnot appear
remorseful

14, Remoteneas of prior offenses, This factor doesnot spply.

UL Conclusions and Recommendations
“The Panel considered carefully the Rules violated ~3.5(6), 6:2 end 8.4 (8, the

‘ABA Standards, and the cases offered by the ODC and Respondent. ‘The Panel

considered possibe sanctions, including the private admonition sanctions in Board

Case No 42, 1995, Board Case Nos. 46,2006 and 26, 2007, Consolidated, and ODC

File No. 2011-0305-B (February 9, 2012)

‘Afir considering all of the factors, including aggravating and mitigating factor,
the Panel recommends that a public reprimand be imposed.

‘Mos courts impose a reprimand on lawyers who violate a ourt order orale

that causes injury or potential injury to aeliet or other party, ot who cause

interference or potential interference with algal proceeding.

‘ABA Commentary, Standard 62 (“Abuse ofthe Legal Process”)

[Reprimand isthe appropriate sanction in mort cases ofa violation ofa duty owed

to the profession. Usually there is litle or no injury to a client, the public or the

legal system, and the purposes of lrwyerdiseipine will best be served by

imposing «public sencton that helps educate the respondent lawyer and deter

{ature violations, A public sanction aso informs both the pubic and other

‘members ofthe profession that his behavior i improper.

‘Standard 7.0 (“Violations of Other Duties Owed as a
Professional”)

‘Thus, education of the public and the profession are valid results of « public
reprimand. In this instance, however, the Panel wishes to make clear thet its main

2
‘purpose in recommending this sanction is not to make the Respondent “a postr child
‘or bad behavior in Family Court,” a concem expressed by Respondent's counsel (S-
62), Iti, rather, the Panel's view ofthe appropriate sanction in light of Respondent's
‘own patter of behavior in these thee cases,

‘One of Respondent’ eters tothe Cour, taken alone, might not support the
public reprimand sanction for an isolated violation of Del. Prof. Cond. R.3.5(f). Ibis
true that the Respondent's language does not amount tothe inflammatory language of
‘Abbott, Ramunao or Guy, The Respondent, however, sent discourteousletiers tothe
(Court in thre diferent cases, and violated other ethical rules in each of those cases.

‘While there is no apparent Delaware precedent fr imposition ofa sanction
pursuant to Del, Prof. Cond. R. 62 (“Accepting Appointments”), the Family Court
‘mandatory appointment practice has been in place in Sussex County, where the
Respondent practices, for fften years. The Respondent had been appointed on
‘numerous occasions prior tothe cass a issue and was aware of his responsibilities
‘upon receipt ofthese three Family Court appointments. Mandatory appointments are
newer in New Castle County, but the Respondent's appointments, and underlying
uties, were not new to him or his fellow members of the Sussex County Bar. The
Respondent testified that upon appointment inthe three cases in this ODC matter, wad
in four others, he did not obtain subsite counsel, as permitted by the Court. Rather,
Ihe attempted to throw the burden back on the Court, by writing tothe Court and
‘king to withdraw as counsel, Inthe three cases at issue here, the Courts fist
denial ofthe Respondent's request did not satisfy the Respondent, and he persisted
‘through correspondence with the Court and his client, uni in the two later cases, be

3
achieved his purpose (to be relieved of the appointment). His conduct amounts tothe
‘repeated, intentional avoidance of thee valid Court appointments, without a legally
cognizable excuse.
‘The Respondent's
Justice) in the wasting of judicial resources isnot de minimus, The Respondent

 

.4() violation (conduct prejudicial to the administration of

sete tat he didnot sock to avoid appointment afer the Court denied his
rues, that edd not continue o request to wir afer his motions were
denied, and that be di nt believe his conduct was pejudiclalto the administration
of justice. T-60-61. The evidence shows, however, that in each of these three cases,
‘the Respondent began the waste of judicial resources in filing motions to withdraw
‘wen he dd not believe the motions would be granted (T-60), and when he could
have obtained substitute counsel but did not do so. He continued to waste judicial
‘resources, and in contradiction to his testimony, by persisting with the Court after his
‘motions were denied (see Exhibit 5, March 4, 2010, letter to Judge Henriksen
following January 4, 2010, denial of motion to withdraw; Exhibit 10, January 13,
2011, eter Commissioner Holloway afer a January 12,201, denial of motion to
withdraw; March 17,2011, office conference with Chief Judge Ku regarding
March 11,2011, appointment; March 23,2011, corespondence with clin, and
“March 30,2011 letter to Chie Judge Kun).

‘Taken as a whole, for violations of Rules 3.5(d), 6.2 and 8.4(d) in connection with
‘ch of thre Family Cour appointments, the Panel recommends the imposition of
sable reprimand,
‘Board Case No, 2011:0170-B Addendum

Respondent, through counsel, alleged atthe March 8, 2012, sanctions hearing that
Family Court breached the confidentiality ofthe ODC process “eas than 24 hours after
the hearing on January 23” ($-32) at a CLE seminar, “Common Ethical Pitfalls With
‘Family Court Appointments.” Mr. Bayard, counsel for Respondent, sid he attended the
seminar where a Family Court practitioner “described in some detail the facts ofthis
matter tied before the Pane the day before.” $-33. Mr. Bayard did not accuse Pane!
‘Members or Ms, Schwartz of ODC, but suid that evidently the “confidentiality required
bby Rule 13...docsn’t apply to Family Court personnel.” $33,

Mr. Bayard speculated that this matter has “been in the public domain for some
time” and tht ia New Castle County sttomey is familiar with it, “the entire Sussex
‘County Family Court bar not only knows the facts ofthis case but can put two and two
‘together and has figured out who the respondent is. Even before today, Mr, Murray has
‘been publicly embarrassed and that’s wrong.” $-33. Mr. Bayard argued that the
“integrity of the process has been threatened,” and while “obviously it has no impact on
‘his Panel...the Panel needs to be aware that confidentiality has been breached.” $-33.

‘The Panel expressed grave concem about the allegations, made forthe frst time
atthe March 8 hearing, and inquired further. Ms, Schwartz sid that ODC bad
investigated Mr. Bayard's charge. Mr. Bayard ssid he had “absolutely [no idea] where
the source ofthe leak i, but Ihave a good guess, and that would be Family Court.
[Nobody else would have the information.” $-35.

Ms, Schwartz sid that an ODC colleague, speaking at a Melson Inn of Cour,
addressed trends at ODC, including the issue of Family Court appointments, without

55
{identifying cases, andthe need to raise awareness of mandatory appointments,
particularly in New Castle County where the practice is newer. $-36, Ma, Schwartz sud
‘that atthe Iter January 24, 2012, seminar a presenter (aot from ODC) who had attended
the Inn of Court months before ($- 42) said she understood there were two cases
‘roceeding through ODC. Later in the seminar, Ms. Schwartz sid, the presenter talked
of lawyer's writing the client to tell the client the lawyer was incompetent, which could
be viewed as “sabotaging the appointment.” $-37.

Ms. Schwartz suggested that those familiar with the case, such as Respondent's
counsel andthe Panel, might recognize the facts but that there was nothing identifying at
‘the seminar, Ms, Schwartz also argued the allegations, while unfortunate and an issue 10
bbe deat with by ODC, the Family Court and perhaps the Board in another venue, are not
relevant to ths cxse, 8-38-39.

Mr. Bayard argued thatthe Respondent has “already been publicly plored,” and
although there was no name dislosed inthe seminar, Mr. Bayard said be believed
“Sussex County’ was included, and the word she used was ‘percolating within the
system." $-40, Mr, Bayard acknowledged that no one suggested the case was being,
heard by a panel ofthe Board, but “It was astonishing for me less than 24 hours after
appearing in front of you to hear this come up and hear thee Inwyers in the room say, ‘T
{know who tht i.""$-41, He agreed that any revelation “had nothing todo withthe
Panel and nothing to do with Ms, Schwartz." $-42.

‘Mr. Bayard said that “lawyers love to gossip, and they do...But there obviously
‘was a leak somewhere and I'm betting it was Family Court. That's just my experience.”
8.59, Mr. Bayard said that while the allegation should not be “factored into the
thinking” of the Board on this disciplinary mate, $-62, “just wanted you tobe aware of
it. .kt was mentioned for the purpose of, one, my concer about confidentiality, and, ro,
‘on the premise that I don't believe that Mr, Murray's behavior warrants poster child
‘weatment.” $-62. When asked the relevance ofthe allegations to the sanctions hearing,
Me. Bayard responded, “Well, to the extent there ae mitigating crcumstance, it's in the
‘public domain, that may be mitigating, I don't know....A8 a guy who is geting dealt with
by the Board on Professional Responsibility for doing bad things in Family Cour... just
think that’s out there and that's the troublesome thing.” $-63. Me. Bayard pointed to the
small size of the Sussex bar, and that three people attending the seminar ted the
information to Mr. Mury. $-65.

Given the seriousness ofthe allegations raised atthe March 8 sanctions hearing,
the panel requested a copy of the DVD of the seminar in question, as well as a transcript
ofthe seminar. The DVD and trascript were distributed tothe Board on March 26,
2012.

Having read the seminar transcript and having viewed the DVD of the seminar
‘presentation from January 24,2012, the Pane is satisfied that there was no reference to
‘the Respondent, or even to the county in which an ODC matter might have originated,

‘The seminar (“Common Ethical Pitills i Family Court Appointments”) was
resented in New Castle County, and presented by simultaneous transmission remotely to
Kent and Sussex Counties, Margot Alicks, Esquire and Ms, Shauna Hagan, Esquire, both
"New Castle County practitioners, were the presenters. Ms, Alicks, who had been
‘admitted to the Bar for two months and was in her firm's business department when she
received her first Family Court appointment, spoke of her experience in handling the
‘appointment. Ms. Hagan, a New Castle County Family Coust practitioner, gave the
history ofthe mandatory Family Court eppointment process. Ms. Hagan, who had
actended the Inn of Cour, sid “there are two cases that T curently know about that are
proceeding through ODC because of ..atomeys' failure to accept the Court
“appointment.” Ms. Hagan pointed to rule 6.2 to note tet an attorney can only decline
‘appointment for good cause, CLE Seminar transcript -5 (Hereinafter, ¢., CLE-S).

‘There were extensive discussions of ow to get assistance if one is appointed,
bow to keep suficent records, and how and where to communicate with clients. Ms.
Hagan stated that one is considered competent to representa client if ne has passed the
Delaware Bar, CLE-37.

"Noting Ethical Rule 84(4), Ms. Hagan suid “ther is a rumor going around that
there was an attorey who was Court eppointed who seat a letter tothe client telling them
that they weren't competent to represent them. That has been found tobe ~it's going up
=I think ODC action is being taken on this” CLE-37. Later, Ms. Hagan speculated, “I
think the point ofthat case was I think the person was doing that in order to try to get the
‘client to ‘fire them,’ I put thet in quotes because...Court appointment i a litle hard 10
fire somebody. But...that's probably... they were trying to set it upto get out oft by
doing it, by sabotaging the case... you can say this isnot my normal rea of
practice..." not saying be dishonest. You can openly say this isnot my area..but it's
‘Your obligation as a Delaware lawyer to become competent in that case, to do the
research and talk to the people that you need to talk to about it, And I thnk that's where

they're coming from with that.” CLE- 38-39.

38
‘Ms. Hagan mentioned a “second ODC case that’s floating around as well where
someone was Cour appointed and just simply dida’t do anything” CLE-39.

‘The only reference to Sussex County during the presentation (53 pages of
transcript) arose in regard to a male audience member's question in New Castle County.
CCLE-37, Following the discussion, Ms Alics, the other presenter, commented onthe
question at CLE-37: “So, that was a good question, though. I think he said it loud
enough, they probebly heard him in Sussex.” CLE-41.

‘The Panel concludes thatthe Susex County mention was not liked to any ODC
‘ase, Having viewed the DVD and serutinized i for any possible ink to this case, the
‘Pane! is satisfied that the “Sussex County” mention simply addressed whether the
audience member's question could be heard at the other remote locations during the
seminar. There wer similar references to whether speakers could be heard in Kest and
Sussex Counties during the other pesestatons that day.

In fact, because Ms. Hagan and Ms. Alicks practice in New Castle County and
they were speaking from their own experiences, one who was unfamilie with the facts at
the time of he seminar could easily sumise thatthe ODC cases refered to originated in
‘New Castle County.

‘There is concer about how the three Sussex County practitioners, to whom Mr.

 

‘Bayard refered as linking the seminar references to the Respondent, drew their
conclusions. As the presenters suid, the Family Cour Barn Delaware is small. The

Sussex County Bar is smaller It is very possible that, before this case was ever referred
to ODC on January 21,2011, by Commissioner Holloway, the Respondent's unique syle

of correspondence and continued efforts to avoid appointment could have been the
subject of courthouse chatter in Sussex County, by the clients and families of clients be
‘ultimately did not represent, the practitioners who were appointed in his stead, opposing.
counsel, and others. Ifthere was general knowledge in advance ofthe Respondent's
‘conduct among those in Sussex, they might have drawn their conclusions upon hearing
the (non-identifying) presentation. However, one might also speculate that those who
enjoy such gossip might have been doing their own speculation regarding New Castle
‘County practitioners atthe northem seminar location.

The Panel does not minimize the grave concem if there was a breach of
confidentiality inthis matter. ODC should take great care to avoid any potential breach,
and may wish to reconsider how even non-identifying information is disseminated,
‘asticularly in pending matters, if there isa risk of disclosure.

For purposes of this disciplinary case, however, the Pane! is satisfied thatthe
‘Respondent was not “publicly pilloried” (S-40) by anyone connected with the CLE
seminar presentation, the ODC, or the Board, nor should any loose speculation atthe
seminar be considered as a “mitigating circumstance” inthis case.
Respectfully submitted,

Date: Opal 25, 20/a Lite A hk Loge —
‘Susan H. Kirk-Ryan, Esq. (1D. 1070), Chair
ee:_Dyl a4 ore Ms
‘Karen L. Valihura, Esq. (C.D. No. 2789)
‘Date:,
Aptana Nee Ge EaD.

6