Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Poliquin

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  § No. 129, 2016

COURT OF THE STATE OF §

DELAWARE: § Board Case No. 112318-R

RONALD G. POLIQUIN,

Petitioner.

Submitted: March 29, 2016
Decided: April 5, 2016

Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 5" day of April 2016, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 9, 2012, this Court suspended the petitioner, Ronald G.
Poliquin, from the practice of law for a period of six months and one day." On.
February 21, 2014, we denied Poliquin’s first petition for reinstatement. He

filed his second petition for reinstatement on June 8, 201

 

The Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed a response in opposition to the petition for
reinstatement. A panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility held a
hearing on the petition on November 10, 2015, and post-hearing briefing

concluded on January 15, 2016.

 

Ine Poliquin, 49 A.34 1115 (Del. 2012).
* Inre Poliquin, 2014 WL 708482 (Del. Feb. 21, 2014).
(2) The panel filed its Report and Recommendation with this Court on
March 15, 2016. The panel found that Poliquin has met the standards for
reinstatement and recommends that he be reinstated subject to a two-year period
‘of probation with specific conditions attached to his probation, Neither the ODC
‘nor Poliquin has filed any objections tothe panel's Report and Recommendation,

(3) The Courthas reviewed the Report and Recommendation carefully,
‘The Court has determined thatthe panel's Report and Recommendation should
be adopted in its entirety.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED the panel’s Report and
Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED. Ronald G. Poliquin shall be reinstated,
effective immediately, as a member of the Bar of this Court subject to atwo-year

Period of probation with all of the conditions set forth in the attached Report.

BY THE COURT:

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

 

   

In the Matter ofa )
Member of the Bar of ) CONFIDENTIAL
the Supreme Court of )
Delaware: ) Board CaseNo. 112318-R =
) sis
RONALDG.POLIQUIN, )
Respondent.) a
y >
‘REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION S
‘ON 2
PETITIONER'S SECOND REINSTATEMENT PETITION

‘This matter is before a Panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Panel”) on
Petitioner's second Petition for Reinstatement following his suspension from practice for six
‘months and a day. Members of the Panel were Richmond L. Williams, Esquire (chair), Deirdre
McCartney, Esquire and Deborah L, Mille, Ph.D. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC")
‘opposes this petition, claiming that the Petitioner has filed to meet his burden of proving by
 

 

professional duties owed

‘The record does not support these arguments. Dr. Hopwood was aware of the circumstances that
Jed to Petitioner's suspension and had reviewed relevant information. While itis possible that
‘some specific document was not given to her, ODC has not pointed out any material document
that was omitted. In other words, ODC was not able to show that he opinion would have been
different had she been given any particular piece of information that was omitted. The panel
notes that, in being questioned by ODC, Dr. Hopwood gave a very concise and accurate
‘description of the issues that led to his suspension.” She also knew the progression of his
attempts to address his problems.”* This is quite persuasive in convincing the Panel that Dr.
Hopwood did, indeed, understand the issues she was dealing with. Although, Ms. O'Brien
acknowledged that she did not have all of the formal documents regarding Petitioner's
disciplinary history,” her testimony demonstrated that she was quite aware of his performance
problems and was working to help him develop ways to address them.2° ODC’s proposed
Conclusion is completely at odds with the overwhelming evidence on the record before the Panel.

‘The Panel similarly finds ODC's position that Petitioner “is incapable of changing his
behavior...” is not supportable when viewed in light ofthe undisputed evidence on the record.
All experts, including ODC’s expert Dr. Mack, support the conclusion thatthe problems
‘encountered by Petitioner could be addressed. All, including Dr. Mack, acknowledged thatthe
‘evidence demonstrated that change had taken place."

Mr. Andre Beauregard testified that his firm has employed Petitioner as law clerk since
Petitioner's suspension. He testified in detail about the work Petitioner did for the firm and stated

 

 

*oocar2.
Soocatz.

 

2, a63-7,

Tr at 251. Dr. Mack dt not beleve thatthe change in test scores was sufclent and appeared to gnore the
testimony ofthe people who observed his behevior on a day to day basis in concluding thatthe change was not
‘enough. This evidenced by the fact that although given the opportunity to hear al witnesses at the hearing he
i’ bother to take advantage ofthat opportuny. Tr, at 254

6
‘without qualification that Petitioner was capable of meeting the standards of Delaware
attomey.

‘Sean Lynn, a Delaware attomey since 2005, Father James Lentini (Respondent's Pastor) and Bill,
Moser (Respondent's Narcotics Anonymous sponsor) al testified in support of Petitioner's
reinstatement.” They testified about his character, his remorse, his involvement in the
‘community and his honesty and integrity. All supported his reinstatement."

‘Mc, Poiquin testified on his own behalf He acknowledged the filings that led to his
suspension.” He expressed remorse for his wrongful conduct and for harming the institution of
law.” He testified at length tothe steps he took to address the causes of failure to meet the
standards, including what has been described before as his performance issues. In cross
‘examination, ODC questioned a numberof areas. One of which became a theme in its brief
suggesting that Mr. Polquin had a candor problem. One example isthe question of what
representations were made when Petitioner went to Mind & Body Consortium to seek a
prescription for Strattera. His direct testimony was:

 

 

(Q: There was something about atthe Mind and Body Consortium you had made
reference to you were having problems with doing assignments, clarity, focus.
‘Was that at that time you went or were you relating what the problems were in
the past?

‘A: That's not what I presented to them. I presented, I said—first I told them I
hod this evaluation taken and my counselor is recommending Strattera. And 1
{old them about my past isues with my ADHD and how I was handling it at that
Point. 1 did not say that I was having issues asa law clerk a that point in time.
‘That was a mistake.”

 

 

(On cross examination, Petitioner agreed that he did not require Mind & Body Consortium to

correct this errr, but he does not concede that the entry inits records is correct. However, in its
brief, ODC uses this inaccurate entry asa basis to argue that Petitioner was not candid with that
provider."° The record does not support ODC's argument that the entry is evidence of dishonest
bbehavior on the part of Petitioner." While itis true there are some mistakes and inconsistencies,

 

Bye, at 2-16.

teat 131-148,

The Panel also notes the transcripts ofthe prior reinstatement earings that have been made 2 part ofthe
{eer belre it Se, Exhibits 3 and 4. They contain adional character evidence ln support of his good character.
eat 148-208,

Ste, at 159-58,

2,98 158-160,

 

“Simitary, the Pane dos not find the argument ralsed by ODC regarding Petone's allure tot Or. Vilabona In
the prior petition to suggest dshonesty. As Petitioner noted in response to cross examination, although he alld

?
in the record of Petitioner since his suspension, mistakes and inconsistencies can be found in the
‘work product of all honest and well intentioned parties, including counsel for both ODC and the
Petitioner in this proceeding and, no doubt, this Report and Recommendation.

‘The Panel has carefully looked at the evidence relevant to this issue. The Panel finds that ODC
‘resents a strained interpretation ofthe evidence by suggesting Petitioner has demonstrated
neither honesty nor rehabilitation, The interpretation that is best supported by the evidence onthe
record is that Petitioner bas demonstrated his ability to meet deadlines and prioritize and to
hhonestly deal with life's adversities. This ability has significantly improved as a result of his
diligently pursuing a number of spproaches, including counseling by Mr. Widder and Ms.
(Brien, organizational techniques, spiritual counseling, Narcotics Anonymous, support of
DELAP, support ofhis employer, friends and family his trong motivation to resume practice as
‘a lawyer and, finally, his prescription for Strattera. Most of ODC’s points suggesting inabi
failure to change are from the period prior to Petitioner's suspension. The evidence following his
‘suspension is overwhelmingly of success in addressing his performance issues. His last petition
‘was denied, not because he had not progressed, but because he had not pu on sufficient evidence
to-meet his burden in all areas.

  

 

 

In opposition tothe petition for reinstatement, ODC presented only one witnes, Jonathan H.
‘Mack, Psy.D. Dr. Mack was given the opportunity to be present during the testimony in the
hearing but chose to be present only during part of the testimony and had previously reviewed
the records relating tothe neuropsychological assessments and had issued his own report based
‘upon his evaluation.“ Dr. Mack explained that he was a “Forensic Psychologist.” He testified
that his role was to Took a the root cause ofthe issue “objectively” rather than to advocate for
the patient's recovery." According to Dr. Mack the first part ofthe assessment requires
‘examination ofthe individual to determine his mental stat, the second part requires review of
records and collateral sources and the third partis testing“ These are the “thee legs ofthe
stool” on which forensic neuropsychological and psychological evaluations must be based.” He
testified at great length about what review should have been conducted in his view and, it seems,
‘concluded tha there was insufficient information to determine ifthe Petitioner's performance
issues had been addressed in a satisfactory manner. However, at the end, in response toa
‘question from the Panel Dr. Mack was unable to state whether the addtional evaluative measures
be recommended would be a better predictor of whether or not the Petitioner would be able to

 

 

tolls the doctor the patton, he did disclose the doctor throughout the process and had provided
‘authorizations for aces to al records from people who provded treatment, Including Or. Vllabons. Tr. at 76
7.

The report was introduced into evidence and sented as Exhibit ODC 7.

rat 200212.

ig

tr at20212.
tr at212-250.
perform appropriately as a lawyer than the testing already administered.” The Panel is
\unpersuaded by Dr. Mack's testimony largely because of what it perceives i his lack of
‘objectivity and lack of consistency between his stated approach to evaluation and the approach
he actualy took. By failing to give weight all ofthe information available through collateral
sources, Dr. Mack fails to follow his own protocol in developing his opinion about Respondent's
fitness to practice. Specifically, he ignored the extensive and entirely unrebutted testimony of
witnesses about Respondent's progress in resolving the areas of deficiency that led to his
suspension (focus and integrity). Similarly, he ignored the battery of tests, in addition to the
WAIS IV test, administered by Dr. Hopwood.

Discussion

‘The Panel notes that reinstatement can occur in two context, suspension and disbarment. Under
Rule 22() lawyers suspended for more than six months have to apply for reinstatement, which
requires proof of rehabilitation and a final order of reinstatement by the Court As was noted
above, since the Petitioner was suspended for more than six months, he has the burden of
‘establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he has met the criteria for reinstatement under
Rule 22(g). Rule 22(g) requires thatthe petitioner prove (1) his professional rehabilitation,
‘including substantial rehabilitation from his drug problem; (2) his compliance with all applicable
Aisciplinary orders; (3) his fitness to practice; (4) his overall competence and awareness of recent
‘developments in the law; (5) that he has not engaged in professional misconduct in other
Jurisdictions; (6) that he sincerely recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of his misconduct
‘on which his suspension was predicated; (7) that he has the requisite honesty and professional
integrity to resume the practice of law; and (8) that his resumption of practice will not be
detrimental tothe administration of justice.

‘The ethical violations leading to Petitioner's suspension from practice were violating deadlines
established by the Supreme Court, Superior Court and Family Court, failing to provide
‘competent representation, to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in several
situations and filing to act with appropriate candor to the Supreme Court." They were brought
about and execerbated by his difficulty focusing and dealing with stress in avery full practice
1nd his addictions. While these were serious infractions and suspension was necessary to protect,
the public from a pattem of conduct that caused actual and threatened harm to his clients and the
‘administration of justice, they were not ofthe nature to result ina longer suspension or even
disbarment.

 

‘Cases involving reinstatement proceedings cited by ODC in its brief involved petitions for
reinstatement from disbarment, where the underlying misconduct was serious misconduct such
as theft from clients. Se, in re Reed, $84 A.2d 1207 (Del. 1990)(disbarred after conviction for
theft following a series of other disciplinary actions), In re Bennethum, 278 A.2d 831 (Del. 1971)

 

2 ry 8258-289.
Poin
(Gisbarred as a result of being convicted of giving false testimony and fabricating evidence in his
criminal trial for willful failure to file tax returns) and In re Hawkins, 87 A. 243 (Del.
1913)(disbarred after being convicted of embezzlement from a client) and cases on reinstatement
like Jn re Clark, 406 A.24 28 (Del. 1979) (cited in Reed) (disbarred after diverting approximately
{$100,000 from his clients). The Panel finds /n re Pankowski, Del.Supr, No. $03, 2013, Jacobs J.
(October 13, 2014) more helpful in that it specifically addressed a similar situations to that,
leading to Petitioner's suspension, where the attomey had an alcohol addiction that contributed
to the behavior leading to his suspension,

 

With these distinctions in mind the Panel will review the criteria of Rule 22(g) in order.
1. Professional Rehabilitation.

‘To satisfy this element, Petitioner must establish that he has addressed both his drug problem and
the underlying cause of his performance issues. The evidence is uncontroverted that Petitioner
successfully completed his inpatient treatment for his addiction and has passed numerous random
drug ests. He also remains active in Narcotics Anonymous from the time of his inpatient
treatment to the present. tis now 5 years since Petitioner contacted DELAP. It is approximately
four and three-quarters years since he underwent inpatient treatment. He remains drug free, We
‘conclude that he has proven by clear and convincing evidence that he has his drug problem under
control.

 

In the prior order denying reinstatement, the Court adopted the Pane!’ recommendation that
found that the Petitioner had filed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that his
performance issues had been addressed. We commend ODC for pointing out o Petitioner that he
‘needs an objective basis to suppor his contention that these issues have been addressed and
recommending that he be retested after begining tater, in ight ofthe results ofthe Oliver
‘evaluation. This does not mean that “rehabilitation” can only be shown by expert testimony and
psychological testing.

‘Under the specific circumstances of this matter, however, where Dr. Oliver's report raised
‘significant questions about whether the underlying issues that led to Petitioner's performance
issues had been resolved, it seems appropiate tha Petitioner sought and obtained the
profesional evaluation by Dr. Hopwood. As ne Clark, 406 A24 28, a 30 (Del. 1979) noted,
“although precedent from this and other jurisdictions should be weighed as guidelines of
discretion, each case must rise and fall on its ow facts and circumstances."

In the hearing before this panel there was a significant amount of evidence presented regarding
Whether Petitioner has addressed his performance issues. Petitioner has taken extensive measures
to.address the root causes of his performance issues. Not only did he take a number of corrective
‘actions to improve his organizational abilities and the DELAP sponsored workshops to combat
‘procrastination, but he continues to employ the techniques in his role asa law clerk. Multiple
lines of evidence support this finding.

10
As discussed previously, upon advice of Ms. O’Brien, Petitioner obtained a prescription for
Strattera, a non-narcotic medication that is used to treat attentional issues. Petitioner then asked
Dr. Hopwood to evaluate him to determine if testing and evaluation could provide an objective
‘basis to establish that he had addressed the attentional and performance issues. She interviewed
Petitioner reviewed relevant records and administered what she determined were the appropriate
tests to evaluate whether he suffered from attentional issues that would prevent him from.
functioning as an attomey. She specifically testified thatthe WAIS test was valid when given a
second time seven months later.” However, she aso administered a numberof other tests and
<did not rely on that test exclusively. Dr. Mack challenged her opinion and methodology, stating,
that she didn't do enough to be able to reach the conclusions she did, Notably, however, he could
‘not state thatthe additional testing he suggested would provide any greater degree of certainty. In
‘addition, he appeared to ignore the significant body of evidence in the form of letters from
people who knew, worked with and counseled Petitioner suggesting that he had vigorously
applied himself to addressing his problems and has done so successflly. n fact Dr. Mack
to acknowledge that Dr. Hopwood followed the very process that he said needs to be followed in

ing a person and, from the Panel's perspective, failed to follow his own advice in by
failing to give weight to all three areas (interview/assessment, review of collateral
sources/records and testing).

Dr. Hopwood found, through testing, that working memory and other components of his
intellectual functioning that had been below normal or created anomalous results in Dr. Oliver's
testing had normalized. She found, through the WAIS test and other tests, that his executive
function was within normal range. She determined through her review ofthe totality of the
information at her disposal that Petitioner would be able to meet deadlines and handle the
shifting priorities that are involved with the practice of law.

 

 

‘The Panel does not accept Dr. Mack's implied assertion that fitness to practice could only be
determined by a large battery of additional tests that he would define, Nor does the Panel accept
Dr. Mack's suggestion that such tests would be determinative, at the exclusion of all other
evidence. We find that this is contrary to both the decisions ofthe Court to date and the expert
testimony regarding how neuropsychological/cognitive issues are evaluated by the profession. It
{s up to the Court, nota single professional, to determine the criteria by which rehabilt

(and, generally, fitness to practice law) would be determined.

   

Following our careful review and weighing ofthe evidence and conflicting expert testimony, we
‘conclude that Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has addressed
the attentional issues that gave rise to his performance issues.

 

Or. Hopwood tested that “practice fects are substantiated upto about sk months.” Tr. at 18. We take this to
‘mean thatthe test can be vay aémblstered after 6 months. A he tested in detail, this was not the only est
she used to come tober condusions. Tat 16-20. With her extensive profesional experience, Including es
_rofestor of Neuropsychology a St Josephs Univers and Temple Univers (including overseeing doctoral
‘candidates at Temple, the Pane! is saised that Dr. Hopwood's testimony competent on these sues.

u
2. Compliance with applicable disciplinary orders.

In the Order denying the Petitioner's first petition for reinstatement, the Court directed that,
<uring the period of suspension, Petitioner will cooperate withthe ODC in its efforts to monitor
his compliance with the suspension order, he must remain active with DELAP and submit to any
<drug or alcoho! testing deemed appropriate.

The evidence is uncontroverted that the Petitioner has remained clean since his inpatient
treatment in 2011 and has cooperated with DELAP. The evidence in the record before the panel
‘suggests that Petitioner has cooperated with ODC’s efforts to monitor is compliance with the
terms of his suspension. Nor does the panel understand ODC to argue that Petitioner has not met
standard,

 

‘Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Petitioner has met his burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that he has complied with applicable disciplinary orders.

3. Fiiness to Practice.

‘As was noted in the prior Panel's report denying the first petition for reinstatement, there is
overlap between this standard and “professional rehabilitation” under the first criterion. Here the
‘question is whether the conditions that caused Petitioner to allow his cases to fll into disarray
hhave been addressed and whether there are any impairments that would prevent him from
‘meeting his obligations as an attorney.

‘As was noted in In re Johnson, 298 P.3 904 (Ariz. 2013), it is notte specific underlying
‘mental condition or diagnosis that is critical, but whether steps to address the conduct leading to
the discipline have been addressed in an appropriate manner. See, /n re Pankowski (adopting the
Board's Report referring to Jn re Johnson). In re Hirsh, 95 A.3d (Vt. 2014) looked atthe
‘question of fitness in the context of an application for admission tothe bar. The Panel believes.
‘the underlying principles are instructive here. First, Hirsh supports the position that itis
inappropriate to look to a person's mental health status as a basis for a determination of his or her
fitness to practice, Rather its appropriate to look to his or her conduct or behavior. Second, the
key behaviors with respect to fitness ofa lawyer are the ability to make proper presentations of
{fact and law on behalf of a client and to focus on the client's needs in and out of court.

Although his frst petition was dismissed because Petitioner failed to establish rehabilitation and
that he was capable of meeting the minimum standards for functioning as an attorney, that deficit
has been addressed in the present hearing. The record is replete with professional testimony that
establishes Petitioner has the capebility to fulfill these obligations and other testimony that he is
‘motivated and, in his role asa law clerk, has shown the skills necessary to function capably as an
attorney.

 

2
In addition, the lay witnesses (members ofthe bar and respected members ofthe community)
testified that he was a loving father, dedicated provider, who is honest and caring and has the
requisite good character to practice law in Delaware.

‘The Pane! finds that Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit
to practice law.

4. Competence
Petitioner put on unrebutted evidence in the form of testimony of his employer that he is up to
speed with the law and would be competent if he were reinstated. ODC does not oppose his

reinstatement on this ground. The Panel finds that Petitioner has established by clear and
convincing evidence that he is competent to practice.

5. Absence of other professional misconduct.

‘There is no evidence on the record of other professional misconduct. Thus Petitioner has carried
his burden on this element.

6. Petitioner's recognition of his prior wrongfil conduct.

Pettioner’s testimony atthe hearing and testimony of hs fiends, pastor and counselors all
support the finding that Petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of his prior
conduct. Tis testimony is unrebutted. Thus the Panel finds that Petitioner has established this
clement ofthe test by clear and convincing evidence.

7. Petitioner has the requisite honesty and professional integrity.

It should be noted that one of the violations that led to Petitioner's suspension was his lack of |
candor to the Cour, in his failure to correct 2 misstatement by his counsel until after the Court
hhad issued a disciplinary order in a Rule to Show Cause hearing. The Panel concludes, based
‘upon its review of the record, which includes testimony of character witnesses and his employer
‘and the experts who testified on his behalf, that Petitioner made a serious error in judgment
during the hearing before this Court. This mistake in choosing expediency over candor occurred
ata time when Petitioner had not fully addressed the issues that led to his suspension. The
‘hearing in front of the Supreme Court was in August, 2010, He went to DELAP in March 2011
and went to rehab at Caron in May 2011. However, subsequently, through his treatment,
‘counseling and consistent efforts to be responsible, Petitioner has acknowledged this issue and
‘demonstrated his commitment to doing things right.

 

Evidence supporting is his performance asa law clerk, his interaction with his spiritual and
psychological counselor, participation in Narcotics Anonymous and his consistency in
following through on his commitments. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the Panel
* potguint 92.

3
concludes that Petitioner has met his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence
that he has the requisite honesty and integrity to resume the practice of law.

8 Petitioner's resumption of practice will not be detrimental tothe administration of
Justice.

Petitioner has taken admirable steps to address his underlying performance issues. The evidence
strongly supports his rehabilitation and fitness to practice. There are no reasons, from the Panel's
perspective, to support a finding that his reinstatement would be detrimental to the administration
of justice. Accordingly, the Pane! finds that the Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that his resumption of practice will not be detrimental to the administration
ofjustice.

Recommendation

Because the Panel after carefully considering the evidence before it has found thatthe Petitioner
has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has met the eri
recommends thatthe Petition for Reinstatement be granted. However,
<ecisions on other reinstatement petitions," the Panel observes that inthe instances when the
Petition for Reinstatement is granted, the Court usually imposes conditions to ensure continued
ethical behavior.” The Pane! suggests that such conditions would be appropriate inthis instance
as well. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that a two year probationary period be imposed
‘upon Petitioner's reinstatement. During the period of probation, the Panel recommends that the
following conditions be imposed:

|. Petitioner shall reimburse ODC for the costs of this proceeding, except forthe costs
attributed tothe services of Dr. Mack. Ifhe is unable to pay the costs immediately,
‘ODC and Respondent shall enter into an agreement establishing a payment plan
allowing him to pay the costs ofthese proceedings within the period probation.

2. Petitioner must obtain certification from the Delaware CLE authorities that he is
current in his CLE requirements. Petitioner may not begin practicing law until those
requirements are satisfied

3._ Petitioner shall not engage in the solo practice of law, without the prior written
consent of ODC, which may be conditioned upon any reasonable terms and
conditions it deems are appropriate to protect against Petitioner missing deadlines and,
‘appearances.

44. Respondent continue his agreement with DELAP, including the requirement of
‘random drug testing and following its reasonable recommendations regarding

  

 

 

“
5.

‘counseling and training. DELAP will report to ODC on Respondent's compliance
‘With this requirement on a quarterly basis during the term of the probationary period.
Petitioner must remain in his active recovery from his addiction by his continued
participation in Narcotics Anonymous.

‘A practice monitor, other than his employer, shall be appointed to review Petitioner's
work, including review of deadlines. They shall meet monthly during the first year of
‘probation and no less than quarterly during the second year. The monitor shall report
to ODC on a quarterly basis regarding Petitioner's performance,

‘The Petitioner will cooperate with ODC in monitoring his compliance with the terms
of Probation.

Petitioner shall provide ODC with evidence that he is covered by legal malpractice
{insurance before he begins practicing law and he shall keep such insurance in full
force and effect throughout his probationary period,

‘Any failure to comply with the terms of the probation may be grounds for discipline.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE
Conclusion

For the reasons and with the conditions stated herein, we recommend that the Petition for
Reinstatement be approved,

Respectfully Submitted,
Richmond L. Williams, Esquire (LID. No. 2113)
Panel Chair

i Wi
ice MeCuey, xq (LD. No. 450
Panel Member

Lota

Deborah L. Miller, Ph.D.
Panel Member

 

Date: March 15, 2016