Title: Matter of Tenenbaum

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:

No. 294, 2005

Board Case Nos. 48 and 52, 2004

JOEL D. TENENBAUM, (CONSOLIDATED)

Respondent.

Submitted: July 25, 2005
Decided: August 5, 2005

Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.

Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Report of the Board on Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court and Response from Office of Disciplinary
Counsel. Suspension Ordered.

Andrea L, Rocanelli, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington, Delaware.

Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, of Fox Rothschild, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for
Respondent.

Per Curiam:
This is an attomey disciplinary proceeding. The Board on Professional
Responsibility (Board) filed a Report and Approval of Stipulation and Joint
Recommendation addressing professional misconduct by the respondent, Joel D.
‘Tenenbaum. That Report, without attachments, is appended hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and Tenenbaum
agree that Tenenbaum should be suspended for three years. The Board’s factual
findings and its recommended sanction are not disputed. Nonetheless, this Court
reviews the record independently to determine an appropriate sanction.’
‘Supreme Court Review

‘The Supreme Court's authority in matters of lawyer discipline is well settled:

‘This Court has the inherent and exclusive authority to discipline

‘members of the Delaware Bar. Sanctions recommended by the Board

cften aid in our determination, but are not binding on this Court. The

sanctions are not designed to be either punitive or penal. The relevant

factors to be considered in determining an appropriate sanction are: a)

the nature of the duty violated; b) the lawyer's mental state; ¢) the

actual/potential injury caused by the misconduct; and d) the existence

of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In addition, to assure

faimess, the sanction must be consistent with prior disciplinary
decisions.*

 

"See, In Re Froelich, 838 A.2d 1117, 1120 (Del. 2003).
2m Re Landis, 80 A.24 291, 293 (Del. 2004)(Intemal quotations and citations omitted).
2
‘After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that a three year suspension,
asrecommended by the Board, is the appropriate sanction. The evidence establishes
that, during the past 5 - 10 years, Tenenbaum has sexually harassed female clients
and employees, both verbally and physically. His conduct violated former Rule
1.7(b), Rule 1.8G), Rule 8.4(a) and Rule 8.4(b) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of
Professional Conduct. Tenenbaum engaged in a pattem of illegal activities that
harmed clients and employees. He has substantial experience as a Delaware lawyer,

having been admitted to practice in 1972, and he has a prior, though unrelated,

 

plinary record. Although the Court recognizes that Tenenbaum has experienced
emotional problems and that he has a record of public service, the severity of his
misconduct mandates a three-year suspension.

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1) Tenenbaum be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of
Jaw for a period of three (3) years, beginning January 5, 2005, the date upon which
Tenenbaum ceased the practice of law;

2) During the suspension, Tenenbaum shall conduct no act directly or
indirectly constituting the practice of law. Tenenbaum shall not share in any legal
fees arising from clients or cases referred by Tenenbaum during the period of

suspension to any other lawyer or share in any legal fees eared for services by

3
others during the period of suspension. ‘Tenenbaum shall also be prohibited from
having any contact with clients or prospective clients or witnesses or prospective
witnesses when acting as a paralegal, legal assistant, or law clerk under the
supervision of a member of the Delaware Bar, or otherwise.

3) Tenenbaum shall not contest the imposition of reciprocal discipline in any
other jurisdictions in which he is admitted to practice,

4) Tenenbaum shall pay the costs ofthese disciplinary proceedings, pursuant
to Rule 27 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

5) This Opinion and Order shall be disseminated by Disciplinary Counsel in

accordance with Rule 14 of the Delaware Lawyers” Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 

In the Matter of a

)
“Member of the Bar of ) CONFIDENTIAL
the Supreme Court of )
Delaware: } Board Case Nos. 48 and 52, 2008
) CONSOLIDATED)
JOEL D. TENENBAUM, )
Respondent. )
AMENDED

REPORT AND APPROVAL OF STIPULATION AND JOINT RECOMMENDATION

‘A. Pending before a pane! of the Board on Professional Respon

 

ty (Board) is a
Petition for Discipline filed March 3, 2005 (an Amended and Supplemental Petition was fled March
22, 2005) in Board Case Nos. 48 and 52, 2005 (“Petition”), involving Joel D. Tenenbaum, Esq,
(*Respondent”), a member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Cour of the State of Delaware, An Answerto
Amended and Supplemental Petition was fled April 1,200S (“Answer”). The Petition and Answer
‘are part ofthe Court's file and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Board's record

B. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“DC”) and Respondent entered into a pre-
‘hearing Stipulation and Joint Recommendation of Sanction, dated April 13,2005 (‘Stipalation and
‘Joint Recommendation”), which was admitted by the Board and designated as Joint Exhibit “A”
atthe hearing, a copy of whichis attached to this report and is incorporated herein by reference.

€. Case No. 48, 2004 is based upon the complaint of a former client that resulted in

charges of Respondent's: failures to provide competent representation; charging an unreasonable fe;
‘and numerous violations of professional rules addressing conflicts of interes and material limitations
‘on lawyer's ability to fully representa client.

D. Case No. 52, 2004s based upon additional information received by ODC subsequent
{0 the compleint resulting in Case No. 48, conceming “multiple additional instances of sexual
‘misconduct on the part of the Respondent, involving clients and members of his office staff”
(Amended and Supplemental Petition for Discipline, paragraph 5),

E, In the Stipulation and Joint Recommendation, Respondent unconditionally admits
‘allegations pertaining to a female client Ann Arborl. Respondent thus admitted that during his
‘representation of Ann Arbor in 1998, he engaged in sexual relations with her and did not bill her
fully for his legal services and now admits that this representation was materially limited by his
‘Personal interest in having sexual relations with he and thatthe conduct violated former Rule 1.7(t)
of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

F. The balance of the facts and violations were not unconditionally ad

 

by
Respondent; rather, Respondent didnot contest that the ODC would prove by clear and convincing
evidence the balance of the facts and violations set forth in the Stipulation and Joint
Recommendation, Section IV. At the hearing, the ODC and Respondent's counsel noted that the
Drecedent for the use of a Respondent's “no contest to ODC's presentation of clear and convincing,
‘evidence i: Jn the Matter of a Member ofthe Bar ofthe Supreme Court of Delaware: William L.
Garratt Jr. Board Case #32, 2002; Supreme Cour No, 456, 003). Respondent's counsel noted that,
‘in the Garratt case, the Board's found that the ODC had presente clear and convincing evidence of

 

=

 

fresponden's clients und office staf we pseudonyms seated by the ODC.

2
the violations alleged in the counts of the Petition for Discipline, and thatthe Respondent did not file
‘any objections. Respondent's counsel further noted that although the “no contest aspect ofit didnot
‘become. prominent part ofthe Supreme Court's thee or four page Order from that case”, it was et
forth in the transcript ofthe bearing and the Supreme Court accepted the Board's recommendation in
that case2

G. At the outset of the hearing, Respondent’s counsel noted that Respondent had
“voluntarily waived his right to be present forthe first five witnesses”. The Respondent was infact
absent from the courtroom forthe testimony of the first four witnesses, Jane Jones, Faye Franklin,
‘Sarah Smith and Heather Holmes. Respondent was present forthe testimony of the filth witness,
Martha Miller.

H. Also atthe outset ofthe hearing, the ODC moved to dismiss all remaining counts in
the Amended and Supplemental Petition for Discipline and the Board withheld its decision on that
‘motion, but includes its decision on that motion later in this report.

[. The Board heard the testimony ofthe afore-named five witnesses, as well asthe

 

2 ‘The Board reviewed both the Board Report andthe Supreme Court's decision inthe Gat case. The Board report
contained the Board's expres ining tat thefts aged inthe Petition for Discpine wee "enabibed by clear
‘convincing evidence trough he u-refaed teximony of loxeph M McCollough and Mann Zuo, CPA, airs or
LLFCP." The Board fuer found that "te votion alleged in Counts one though nine, inchasve, in the Peiton for
Discipline were established by clea and convacing evidence” The Supreme Couts Deion ncivd sateen
that"we accept he Board's nding of fact" The Panel ofthe Board inthe insant exe questions wheter the Supreme
‘Cour, in adopting the Board's fading of fc and violations by clear and convincing evidence tough eneheed
testimony establishes ano cones rule. As sch ths Board repr is on fndings (tern thi ep), we noting
here tha it has no objection othe procedure by which htsllegedby OD and vations of th Rule of Profesional
‘Condact may be established by «Respondent's concession hat OOC can prove sch fact and voations by cere
convincing evidence

 
the following facts and violations:
Jane Jones
Jane Jones retained the Respondent on May 6, 2003 to represent her in a child support and

visitation matter, Inthe course of the Respondent's representation of Jones, he made inappropriate

 

and gestures on wo spate ceasions.
(on Api, 204:

+The Respondent sai to Jones,“ cannot believe a woman with your looks and personaly
is’ ing

+ The Respondent asked Joes when they would be “going avy together’

+ TaeRespondent asked Jones questions regarding impotence drugs such as Vigra lonesis
Registered Nur, inluding "What would you do fora man who hada our hour ertion?™
and

+The Respondent made an open-rm gesture tnd refised tet Jone eve his fice until she
bogged him,

(On April 26,200, he Respondent asked Jone, “When are you going to ave sex with me”
le 8.4 provides that its professional misconduct fora lawyer "vito tempt to

 

late the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so
through the acts of another.” Effective July 1, 2003, Rule 1.8() provides that “[a] lawyer shall not
hhave sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them

‘hen the client-lawyer relationship commenced.” By engaging in the course of conduct described

 

herein with Jones, the Respondent attempted to initiate sexual relations with his client, in violation
of Rule 8.4(a). (Count 38)
Faye Franklin

Faye Franklin was represented by the Respondent in connection with a domestic relations
‘matter ffom August 2002 through 2004. Throughout the representation, the Respondent acted
inappropriately. The Respondent hugged and kissed Franklin on several occasions, and wanted
Franklin to sit next to him on the couch in hs office. While on the couch, the Respondent would
stroke Franklin’s hair. The Respondent wanted Franklin to put her head on his shoulder. On one
‘occasion, the Respondent took Franklin's hand and forced her to touch him in his genital area
(outside of his pants); he had an erection; he sa, “Let me show you how much I missed you" or
“Let me show you how glad Iam to see you."

Franklin felt very uncomfortable with the Respondent's conduct. At times, Franklin felt that
the Respondent acted aggressively to “try to break me dows,” “to break my spirit” so that he could
then “comfort” Franklin with hugs, kisses and touching, Franklin also felt chat the Respondent
purposely “manipulated” her. Franklin “feared what would happen if | did not play the game.”

Rule 8.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not commit a criminal at that reflects adversely
‘on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness usa lawyer in other respects." 11 Del C'7632)
states that “{a) person is guilty of sexual harassment when: (2) {the person suggests, solicit,
requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to induce another person to have sexual
‘contact or sexual intercourse or unlawfl sexual penetration withthe actor, knowing thatthe actor is
thereby likely t cause annoyance, offense or alarm to that person.” Pursuant to 11 Del. C.'763,
sexual harassment is an unclassified misdemeanor in the State of Delaware. 11 Del. C."601(@}(1)
Sates that “[] person is guily of offensive touching when the person: 1) [iJtentionaly touches
snoher person either with « member of his or her body or with any instrument, knowing that the
person is thereby likely to cause offense or alarm to such other person,” Pursuant t 11 Del C.*
601(¢), any violation of paragraph (8X1) i an unclassified misdemeanor, unless te victim falls
Within on of several specified categories. By engaging in the course of conduct described herein
‘ith Franklin, the Respondent sexually harassed and offensively touched Franklin in violation of
Rale 84(b), (Count 70)
‘Sara Smith

‘Sarah Smiths the daughter ofthe Jamaican hosekeeperand child are provider who worked
inthe Respondents household for many years. Smith ha always called the Respondent “Uncle
Joel" She called him “Uncle Joel” throughout his representation of her. Smith retained the
Respondent to represent her conceming divorce an child custody and support, Smiths husband had
‘eczatlyetumed from Inq and had threatened til Smith on three occasions. Smith retained the
Respondent in October 2003 and paid the fim $3,000 as a retainer fee. The divorce was
uncontested, The matter did ot involve any significant property division issues. It was necessary to
seek Protection From Abuse order(]. Smith was quite young and struggling financially; se had an
abusive husband anda newbom son.

‘Tae Respondent started by giving Smitha peck on he cheek, and occasionally hugging her.
‘The Respondent's advances inreased in frequency and he became more and more aggressive. He
stared scheduling meetings with Smith aller hours. He kissed her onthe mouth, groping he,
‘ouching and squeezing her bottom, and putting his tongue in her mouth. The first time he put his
‘tongue in her mouth, he explained o her that it was usta “friendly kiss” and then proceeded to get
‘on top of her and grope and squeeze her bottom. The Respondent refered to Smith's newborn son

 

'ucky boy” because he was being breast fed. His comments and suggestions became more
‘explicit. The Respondent would sit next to heron the couch and would “be all over me.”

‘Atte second PFA hearing, Smith was very pleased with the outcome. She was so happy that
she went over to hug the Respondent. He pushed her away and said, “Oh no, not here.”

Eventually, Smith insisted on meeting the Respondent during regular office hours, She
recites two incidents that occurred during business hours. On one occasion, Smith and the
‘Respondent were sitting on the couch inthe Respondent's office. He was all over ber and groping
her. The second incident occurred on a day Smith was meeting with Ms, White toreview documents
‘nan upstairs conference room to prepare a financial document commonly referred toas “the 52D.”
‘Smith describes it as a small conference room with a round table and two or three chairs, ‘The
‘Respondent came in and sat down, and asked Ms. White to go downstairs to get documents from the
file. When Ms. White left the room and they were alone, the Respondent pressed Smith up against
the conference room table, grabbed her head, and forced his tongue inte her mouth. He was pushing
his body up against her body, forcing himself. “When he was done,” he took her hand and forced her
{to touch him in his genital area (outside of his pans), and said, “You see what you do to me.”

Smith was afraid to tell him to stop because whenever she resisted him, the Respondent
‘would refuse to address the legal isues of her case. Smith was fairly desperate to retain custody of|
her son, and she felt that she needed the Respondent's asistance to accomplish this. She says that
she tried to tell him “no” on numerous occasions but she came to feel that she had no choice. When
she rebuffed him, the Respondent became aloof, would not focus on her case and acted as if he did
rot care about her case. Also, she felt he was powerful, that he knew all the judges and th lawyers
‘and that he would retaliate against her.

During « meeting in his office, Smith discussed her legal bills with the Respondent,
‘expressing concem about owing so much money and being unable to pay the bill. The Respondent
told Smith to have a seat on the couch. The Respondent sat down very close to her and placed his
hhand on her leg, Smith explained to the Respondent that she was ata disadvantage because she was

Poor and that her son was all she had. As he was sitting close and rubbing her thigh with bis hand,

 

the Respondent replied,
reduced o eliminated the bil if she had agreed to have sex with him. Smith state, “(The
Respondents) advances made me feel cheap.”

Effective July 1, 2003, Rule 1.8() provides that “a lawyer shall not have sexual relations
‘with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer
‘relationship commenced.” By engaging in the physical conduct alleged herein with Smith during the
‘course of his representation of her, the Respondent violated Rule 1.8). (Count 22)

Heather Holmes

Heather Holmes is «legal secretary atthe Respondent’ law firm. She worked forthe
Respondent from 1990 or 1991 until 1997. Thereafter, Holmes was reassigned within the frm,
During the period she worked forthe Respondent, he made inappropriate advances toward her
including touching her shoulders, hugging her, and kissing her on the cheek. Occasionally, the
Respondent made “out of ine” comments about how ice he thought Holmes’ legs were andhow be
noticed she had lost weight. He would push her ito positions so that she could not move and would
poke and tickle her,

‘One dey, when Holmes had just begun working for him, the Respondent brought her intohis,
office and told her,“ really like you. You are more than just a secretary to me.” As time went on,
the Respondent proceeded to make Holmes feel more and more uncomfortable; however, Holmes
‘was apprehensive to notify anyone about what was going on for fear of losing her job and upsetting
hher husband. On one occasion, the Respondent went into Holmes" office, came up behind her and
Dither on the neck while she was working at her desk. At this point, Holmes informed the office
‘manager who transferred her to another attorney. She no longer worked forthe Respondent.

During late 2004 after the Respondent returned to the office with limitations on his conduct,
‘whenever Holmes saw the Respondent, he would put his hands behind his back and say, “I'm not
touching you.” This made Holmes think that the Respondent was thinking of touching her and she
felt violated

Rule 84(b) provides that [a] lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely

fn the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." 11 Del C'7632)

 

‘states that “[a] person is guilty of sexual harassment when: ..(2) [the person suggests, solicits,
‘requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to induce another person to have sexual
contact or sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual penetration with the actor, knowing thatthe actors
thereby likely to cause annoyance, offense or alarm to that person.” Pursuant to 11 Del. C.' 763,
‘sexual harassment is an unclassified misdemeanor in the State of Delaware. 11 Del. C.' 601(@X1)

States that “[a} person is guilty of offensive touching when the person: (1) [iJntentionally touches
another person citer with « member of hs o he body or with any instrument, knowing that the
‘person is thereby likely to cause offense or alarm to such other person." Pursuant 1911 Del. C.*
{601(c), any violation of paragraph (9X1) isan unclassified misdemeanor, unless the victim fall
‘within one of several specified categories. By engaging in the couse of conduct desribed herein
‘with Holmes, the Respondent sexually harassed and offensively touched Holmes in volationof Rule
8.40), (Count 54)
‘Matha Miller

Martha Miller isa part-time paralegal a the Respondent'slaw frm, She was ied in August
2003 to work with lawyers David C. Gagne, Esquire and F.Edrmund Lynch, Esquire. The fist time
‘hat Miller went nto the Respondents office, she overheard conversation that he was having witha
female client va speaker phone. The cient told the Respondent, “He rubs me the wrong way” 9
‘hich the Respondent replied, “I wouldn't mind if you did that to me." He then repeated his
statement while looking diretl at Miller and smiling as he said it

‘Afer she had been working atthe firm fora short period oftime, the Respondent asked her to
‘ork on major case to prepare it fr tral. The Respondent made Miller accompany hen othe til
‘The Respondent's work demands on Miller increased and he put increasing pressure on her. It
eventually reached the point that it was dificult for he to continue working for Gagne and Lynch
‘As the work demands from the Respondent became more intense, his conduct became more
sggressive, He started with hugs that he knew maée her uncomfortable. The physical contact also
included holding er forcefully for perio oftime. Onat least one occasion, the Respondent kissed
heron the mouth, Miller became more and more uncomforsbe. She gained 20 pounds and started

n
hiding from the Respondent.

‘When Miller started to avoid the Respondent and hide from him, he sought her out and
demanded that she come to his office. On several occasions, he said to her, “Who signs your
paycheck? When I call, you come. I don't want to have this conversation again.” He also told
Miller on numerous occasions, “You work for me” and that she was to stop whatever it was that she
‘was doing when he called for her and “come NOW to my office.” On one ofthe days when Miller
hid from the Respondent so that she did not have to face him, the Respondent found her and said,
“Don’t you hide from me. You stand here. I told you to organize the file NOW.” The Respondent
continued to remind Miller that se worked for him by making such statements as, “Who signs your
paychecks? You don’t work for David, you don't work for Ed - you work for ME.”

‘Whenever the Respondent would call herto his office, Miller would be sure to bring file so
‘that she could hold it against herself as a barrier. She also tried to stand at his office door without
‘20ing in. Miller hid inthe bathroom many times, crying and shaking. Eventually, Miller told Gagne
that she was uncomfortable working with the Respondent but did not tell him why. Miller told the

office manager that she

 

‘not want to work forthe Respondent, Eventually, Miller tld Gagne
about the kis

Rule &.4(b) provides that "[] lawyer shall not commit aeriminal act tha reflects adversely
‘onthe lawyer’ honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as lawyer in other respects" 1 DeLC"7632)
states that “[] person is guilty of sexual harassment when: 2) [he person suggest, solicits,
equess, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to induce another person to ave sexual
contactor sexual intercourse or unlaw/il sexual penetration withthe ator, knowing thatthe actoris

2
thereby likly o cause annoyance, offense or alam fo that person.” Pursuant to 11 Del. C. "763,
‘sexual harassment is an unclassified misdemeanor in the State of Delaware. 11 Del. C. '601(a\(1)
states tat “a peon is ily of offensive toushing when he person: (1) [iotentinall touches
another person either with a member of his or her body or with any instrument, knowing that the
peson is thereby Hel o case offense o alam to such other person.” Pursuant to 11 Del."
601(c), any violation of paragraph (aX(1) is an unclassified misdemeanor, unless the victim falls
iin on of several pei cacgoies. By engaging inthe cours of ond esrb herein
With Miler, the Respondent sexually harased and offensively touched Miler in violation of Rule

8.4(b). (Count 52)

1L. Mr. Tenenbaum testified about his experience asa Delaware atomey, his legal work
for various law-related associations and his public and community service throughout his legal career
(Hearing Transcript, pages 155-167; hereafter “T-"). He testified about his prior heat attack andthe

prescription drugs he has taken or is taking curently (T-167-171). He testified about his

 

‘consultations witha psychiatrist, Dr. Dennis Donnelly, over the past three of four yeas for treatment
‘of “major depression and boundary issues” (T-173). Respondent stated his understanding that
“boundary issues” is “saying or doing things that can be misinterpreted by other people,
‘misinterpreted by other people as crossing the lin” (T-171-172). He testified about his “hugging”
tendencies and confirmed that his hugging was not intended in a sexual way (T-174, 175), but
acknowledged that because of his boundary issues, the huggings “could very well have been

B
misinterpreted” (1-175),
He next testified as to the examinations, testing and therapy that he undertook through the
Professional Renewal Center, the report of which appears as Exhibit 3 tothe Stipulation and Joint
Recommendation (T-176-177). He testified briefly regarding the sexual relationship he had with a
<lient during the course of his representation in 1998, noting that this came to light asa result his
‘admission of this relationship, and not as a result of a complaint to the ODC (T-177-178). He
‘acknowledged tha this conduct was wrongful (“malum prohibinum and malum in se”) even price to
the Rule change (T-177-178)3. Lastly he testified that he was “woefully embarrassed” and “horibly
sorry” forthe matters leading to these proceedings, ending hs testimony with his statement that “this
jis not the note upon which I would have liked to have ended my career” (T-178). In response to
further questions from the Board, Respondent confirmed that he was not curently practicing law in
the State of Delaware; that he was not actively practicing in either of the two other jurisdictions in
“hich hes licensed to practice (Pennsylvania and New York) and that he intended to take whatever
‘steps were necessary to confirm his inactive status or voluntarily retirement in all jurisdictions (T-
179-182),
M. Following Respondent's testimony, both Ms. Rocanelli and Me. Weiner spoke in
‘suppor of the Board's adoption ofthe recommended sanction,
N. _Inreaching its findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate sanction, the
‘Board carefully considered the ABA Standards for imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”),
1nd the factors considered under the Standards:

 

 

‘3 Respondent acted tha this conduc vilted former Rule 1.70); the new Rule refered to eRe 1.80),

“4
|, What ethical duty did the ewyer violate? (A duty to a clint, the public, the legal system.
‘or the profession?)

‘The foregoing admitted facts, the uncontested testimony and the admitted and uncontested
violations together substantiate that the ethical duties Respondent violated were those owed both to
his clients and to the legal system (and thus the profession).

2. What was the lawyer's mental state? (Did the lawyer act intentionally, knowingly or

negligently?)

‘Ms, Rocaneli, on behalf of the ODC, noted her position thatthe record established the
Respondent's intentional conduct (T-186). Respondent's counsel did not argue otherwise. Although
‘Respondent offered some testimony to negate that certain of his conduct was intended to be sexual in
nature, the Board finds thatthe Respondent's mental state is best characterized as intentional

3. What was the extent of the ctual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's

‘misconduct? (Was thee a serious or potentially serious injury?)

In reviewing the extent ofthe actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct,
‘the Board agrees with the ODC that the record established that Respondent's conduct resulted in
‘actual harm to some, ifnot all ofthe testifying witnesses,

In discussing the appropriate sanction, the ODC made reference to Section $.12 of the ABA
‘Standards for Imposing Lawyers Sanctions (1991; as amended 1992; the “Standards"). Ms.
‘Rocanelli noted in her closing remarks: “ Under Standard 5.12, a suspension is generally appropriate
‘When a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in

5.11, and those elements address particular types of conduct which are not present here, but which

1s
‘conduct seriously adversely reflects ona lawyer's fitness to practice” (T-187). Ms, Rocanelli further
‘noted that “4.32 sates that a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows ofa conflict
‘of interest and does not fully disclose that conflict toa client, the possible effect of the conflict, and
as a result, injury or potential injury is caused” (T-188), Lastly, Ms, Rocaneli confirmed that
Respondent and the ODC agreed upon suspension as the appropriate result inthis case in the
Interests ofthe witnesses and the Respondent's own interests as well (T-189).

‘The Boards ofthe opinion that Standard 4.32 is directly applicable to this case, and withthe
stipulation of the Respondent thet suspension is appropriate, provides the bases forthe Board's
finding that a suspension is the appropriate intial sanction.

©. After making ths inital determination of the appropriate sanction, The Board then
‘gave consideration to aggravating and mitigating circumstances that could lead to a different
sanction. The aggravating and mitigating factors stipulated to by Respondent and ODC, and

‘adopted by the Board, are restated herein.

Asgravating Factors’
‘The ODC and the Respondent stipulate thatthe ODC will prove by clear and convincing
evidence the following aggravating factors:

<The aggravating and mitigating fare ares inthis Report are derived fom the ABS
‘Standards for nosing Lavoe Sanctions §§ 92 and 93 (1991 (as amended Feb. 1992) (Ce
*Standuc)

16
(1) The Respondent has engaged in a patter of sexual misconduct involving clients and
members of his office staff (Standard § 9.220);

(2) The Respondent acted with the selfish motive (Standard § 9.22(b)]:

(G) The vitims ofthe Respondent's misconduct were vulnerable, du to each oftheir status
ashis clients in domestic relations matters or employees ofhis law firm and/or due o other personal
circumstances (Standard § 9.22(8)];

(4) The Respondent's misconduct in the pending matters consists of multiple offenses
(Standard § 922(6}; and

(3) The Respondent engaged in illegal conduct, consisting of sexual harassment and
offensive touching of clients and members of his office staf [Standard § 9.22(4)).

‘The ODC and the Respondent stipulate thatthe following aggravating factors exist inthis
Alisciplinary matter

(1) The Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law, having been admitted
to the Delaware Bar in 1972 [Standard § 9:22); and

(@) The Respondent has a prior disciplinary record, consisting of two private aémonitions as
follows (Standard § 9.22(0)

(@) ln 1995, the Respondent was privately admonished for violation of Rule 3.3(8X2)
(knowingly filing to disclose a material fact oa teibunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid
‘assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client) and Rule 8.4(€) (engaging in conduct prejudicial t0
‘the administration of justice), when in Family Cour mater he failed to disclose to the Court that

his client had encumbered certain property with notes secured by mortgages); and

0
() In 1984, the Respondent was privately admonished for violation of Canon 1, DR
1-102(A)¢4 (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and DR.
1-102(AXS) (engaging in conduct prejudicial tothe administration of justice), based upon findings
that while testifying asa witness in suppor of his claim for fees, he knowingly misrepresented that
_ecords-in addition to those produced and introduced into evidence- indicating the amount of time
and services rendered tothe client were destroyed as a result ofa fie in the building in which his
‘offices were located, (See Joint Exhibits | and 2)

Mitigating Factors

The ODC and the Respondent stipulate thatthe following mitigating factors exist in this
siseipinary matter:

(1) The Respondent's record of substantial public and community service throughout the
course of his legal career, such as leadership roles within the American Bar Assocation and the
‘Delaware State Bar Association, and volunteering for many service organizations, including Catholic
Charities, and providing other pro bono legal services [Standard § 9.22(Q)|;

(2) The Respondent has experienced personal and emotional problems, including diagnoses
‘of Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate; Dysthymie Disorder, and Personality Disorder
INOS with Narcissistic and Histronic Features (see Joint Exhibit 3) (Standard § 9.32(c); and

(@) The Respondent has not been previously disciplined for sexual misconduct involving
clients or office staff (Standard § 9.32(0)]
‘The Board agrees with the proposed sanction. Although the Board has not been

 

presented with any information regarding criminal charges against Respondent, it generally agrees
with he ODC that three year suspension is consistent with the conduct presented in prior Delaware
cases: In Re: Cristie, $74 A. 24845 (Del, Sup, 1990}; and In Re: Suddard, 670 A. 241341 (De.
Supe, 1995)

The Board is fling this Amended Report and Approval of Sipulation and Joint
‘Recommendation, atthe request of the Office ofthe Child Advocate of the State of Delaware,
correc the prior Report that incorporated an incorrect statement contained inthe Stipulation of
the ODC and the Respondent. The Incorrect statement was contained in Section 0, Miiating
Factors tem 1, that Respondent performed volunteer work forthe Office ofthe Child Advocate.
{In fact, Respondent didnot perform any volunteer work for the Office ofthe Child Advocate

R__Forthe foregoing reasons, the Board agrees withthe proposed santion contained in
the Stipulation and Joint Recommendation, with the conditions as proposed. The Board grants
(ODC's motion to dismiss all remaining counts inthe Amended and Supplemental Petition for
Discipline. The Board's Order and Recommendation tothe Delaware Supreme Court follows
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

‘Three Year Suspension (With Conditions),

1 Respondent shall be suspended from engaging inthe practice of law fora period

of thee years.

2 Respondent shall pay the ODC's costs inthis disciplinary proceeding.

»
3 Respondent shall not engage in the practice of law during the pendency of this
isciplinary proceeding.

4 ‘Respondent shall not contest the imposition of reciprocal discipline in any other
Jurisdictions in which he is admitted to practice.

5. During the period of suspension, Respondent shall not (a) share in any legal fees
arising from clients or cases refered by Respondent during the period of
suspension to any other attorney, oF (6) share in any legal fees earned for services
by others during such period of suspension.

‘The Board hereby considers all issues surrounding this disciplinary matter tobe resolved by

this Order, subject to review by the Delaware Supreme Court pursuant to Procedural Rule 9 (¢)

BOARD LEG RESPONSII

Robert G. Gibbs, Esq. Panel Chair

 

 
 
    

fark Reardon, Esq., Panel Member

Robert J. Vorbell, Panel Member

‘Dated: December 2, 2005
3 Respondent shall not engage in the practice of law during the pendency of this
disciplinary proceeding.

4 Respondent shall not contest the imposition of reciprocal discipline in any other
Jurisdictions in which he is admitted to practice,

5 During the period of suspension, Respondent shall not (a) share in any legal fees
arising from clients or cases referred by Respondent during the period of
suspension to any other attorney, or (b) share in any legal fees earned for services
by others during such period of suspension.

‘The Board hereby considers all issues surrounding this disciplinary matter to be resolved by

this Order, subject to review by the Delaware Supreme Court pursuant to Procedural Rule 9 ().

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Robert G. Gibbs, Esq., Panel Chair

Mark Reardon, Esq, Panel Member

Lebo) mw T-Vontd, Panel Member

Dated: December 2, 2005
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
‘OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In the Matter of a )
Member of the Bar of ) CONFIDENTIAL
‘the Supreme Court of )
Delaware: ) Board Case Nos. 48 and $2, 2008
) (CONSOLIDATED)
JOEL D. TENENBAUM, )
Respondent. )
AMENDED

REPORT AND APPROVAL OF STIPULATION AND JOINT RECOMMENDATION

EXHIBIT

‘+ Joint Exhibit A~ Stipulation and Joint Recommendation of Sanction, dated April 13,2005

(with attached Stipulation Exhibits 1 through 3).