Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Enna

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,

BRADLEY J. ENNA, No. 628, 2008

Respondent.

Submitted: February 25, 2009
Decided: April 20, 2009
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.

Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Es
Delaware.

ire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington,

 

Charles Slanina, Esquire, of Finger, Slanina & Liebesman, LLC, Hockessin,
Delaware for Respondent.

Per Curiam:
This is an attorney disciplinary proceeding. The Board on Professional
Responsibility (the “Board”) conducted a hearing and issued a Report
recommending that Bradley J. Enna be disbarred. A copy of that Report is
attached and incorporated herein. Enna objects to the Board’s recommended
sanction, arguing that the Board mistakenly accepted facts alleged in various
indictments and that the Board failed to accept the undisputed evidence that his
criminal conduct was the result of two brain injuries. Enna contends that an
appropriate sanction would be a period of suspension.

‘This Court has the “inherent and exclusive authority” to discipline Delaware
attorneys.’ Disciplinary proceedings are intended, “to protect the public; to foster

public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to

  

deter other lawyers from similar misconduct." In deciding upon an appropriate
sanction, this Court considers: “() the nature of the duty violated; (ii) the lawyer's

‘mental state; (iii) the actual/potential injury caused by the conduct; and (iv) the

 

"Un re Shamers, 873 A.24 1089, 1096 (Del. 2005),
2m re Agostini, 632 A.24 80, 81 (Del. 1993).
existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”” The Board's
recommendation is helpful, but not binding.‘

Enna stipulated that he was convicted of multiple misdemeanors and two
felonies, including falsifying evidence, terrorizing, assault, violation of condition
of release, and violation of protection from abuse order. He also stipulated that his

criminal conduct violated Rules 3.4(a), 3.4(c) 8.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of the

 

Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Enna does not dispute that his
wife was the victim of his crimes, or that his minor children witnessed the
altercations. Rather, he focuses on the fact that he suffered serious brain injuries

car accident and had no criminal record before the accident. He contends that

 

his medical evidence establishes that his brain injuries caused his criminal
behavior. In addition, Enna argues that he did not use any weapons when
assaulting his wife, and that the Board erred in so finding.

‘After carefully considering the Report and Enna’s objections, we conclude
that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. The medical evidence does not
address his mental state at the time of the crimes, and there is nothing in the record

to suggest that Enna raised any defense to those crimes based on his claimed

In re Tenenbaum, 918 A2d 1109, 1114 (Del, 2007).
‘In re Thompson, 911 A.24 373, 376 (Del. 2006),
3
infirmity. On the second point, it is irrelevant whether Enna threatened his wife

 

4 screwdriver or knife, or he threatened her with some other object. He was
convicted of multiple crimes, including two felonies,’ involving @ vulnerable
victim,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

1) The respondent, Bradley J. Enna, is permanently disbarred from the Bar

 

of the State of Delaware and prohibited from engaging in the practice of law;
2) The respondent shall pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings,
Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
promptly upon presentation of a statement of costs by the Office of Disciplinary
‘Counsel (the “ODC”); and
3) This Order shall be disseminated by the ODC in accordance with Rule 14

of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

 

“Enna points out that hs felony convictions were dismissed two years later, pursuant to a deferred
disposition agreement. That has no bearing on these proceedings, The salient fact is that he was
convicted or pled guilty to those crimes, and does not challenge the validity of those judicial
proceedings,
ATTACHMENT
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

INTHE MATTER OF A BOARD CASE NO. 44, 2008
MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE

‘SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE:

BRADLEY JENNA,

RESPONDENT

REPORT OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Thisisthe port ofthe findings and recommendations ofthe Board on Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court ofthe State of Delaware in the above captioned
‘matter. A hearing was held on October 2, 2008, inthe Supreme Court Hearing Room, 11"
Floor, Carvel State Office Buiding, 820 North French Steet, Wimington, Delaware.

The panel of the Board on Professional Responsibilty consisted of Mark L
Reardon, E59. Dr. Yvonne Anders Gotdon, and David N. Rut, E59. (Chait). The Office
of Discipinary Counsel (ODC"] was represented by Patricia Barley Schwartz. Esa. and
‘Andrea L. Rocaneli, Esq. Respondent was represented by Charles Sianina, Esq, ofthe

firm of Finger & Stanina, LLC.

L_ PROCEDURAL HISTORY

‘The ODC filed a Pettion for Discipline (the Pettion’ withthe Board on Professional
Responstilty of the Supreme Court ofthe State of Delaware (the Board’) on May 7,
2008. Ashereinater set forth, he ODG asserted in the Petion that Bradley J. Enna, Esq
("Respondent commited numerous criminal ses inthe tate of Maine, The Peton set
‘orth nineteen (18) separate counts alleging the Respondent's violation of Rule 3 4a) (one
count), Rule 3.4(c) (four cou

 

), Rule 6.4(b) (elght counts), Rule 8 4(c) (one count), and
Rute 6.4(¢) (fve counts) of the Delaware Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct (the
Rules"), Respondent fied an Answer tothe Petition on May 27, 2008. In Respondent's
‘Answer certain of the allegations were denied, However, at the commencement of the
October 2, 2008 hearing. Respondent's counsel filed an Amended Answer to the Petition
‘hich admitted all of the violations of the Rules. (T: 3)' The Amended Answer did deny
‘some of the charactenzations ofthe incidents which formed the basis of the Petition, but
‘Respondent did admit that the incidents did occur and that as a result the Rules were
Violated. Thus, the hearing of October 2, 2008 was conducted as a sanctions hearing

Prior tothe filing of the ODC Petiton, the Supreme Court ofthe State of Delaware
'ssued an Order dated April 30, 2007. The Court immediately suspended Respondent
from the practice of law inthe State of Detaware pending disposition ofthis matter finding
thatthere was sufficient evidence demonstrating that Respondent had committed violations
of the Rules.

‘Counsel for ODG offered thirteen (13) exhibits into the record, all of whieh were
‘admitted * Counse! for Respondent offered two (2) exhibits, both of which were admitted ?
ODE di not offer any witnesses. Respondent testified on his own behalf and called as
witnesses: David A. Hams, Esq., a member of the Bar of the State of Delaware, Francis,

‘Jackson, Esq., a member ofthe Bar ofthe State of Maine, Francis Giuliano, @ member of

 

"(T:__): Reference to Hearing Transcript of October 2, 2008 hearing,
* Exhibits of ODC shall be referenced as ODC _
" Exhibits of Respondent shall be referenced as Resp _

2
the Bar ofthe State of New Jersey, and Carol Tavani, M.D., a physician licensed to practice

inthe State of Delaware, who

 

Board-ceriiog neuropsychiatnst.

‘Atte conclusion of the hearing, closing arguments were offered by counsel for ODC
‘and Respondent, respectively. In addition, the Pane! was provided copies ofthe cases upon
\which the partes reled in making their arguments. Counsel for ODC argued thatthe proper
Sanctions for the viclations admitted toby Respondent was disbarment. (T:252) Counsel
for Respondent urged the Panel to recommend to the Court a six-month suspension

retroactive to the Court's Order of April 30, 2007. (T: 274)

N. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

A inal rt Rise: jons of th
Rules

(1) Indictment Docket No, 06-26:

‘The Petition alleges that on January 4, 2008, Respondent and his wife argued
during which there was a physical atecation, At the time, Respondent and his wite were
in the early stages of a divorce proceeding and were attempting to reconcile. Specifically,
the Pettion alleges that Respondent held a knife to his wife's throat and threatened to kil
her. When she escaped, he caught her and punched herin the stomach repeatedly infront
of three oftheir children, lof whom were minors atthe time. Ms. Enna had a tape recorder
‘on her person which Respondent discovered during the atercation, tie alleged that he took
the tape recorder and the tape to another room where it was destroyed. The police were
called by Ms, Enna. When they arrived, they found the tape recorder smashed, noticed a
burning odor, but could not find the tape. (Petition {1 5.) Respondent in his Amended

3
 

‘Answer denied the description of those offenses as contained in ODC’s Petition for
Discipline

‘As aresultof this incigent, Respondent was charged withthe folowing crimes

(Criminal Threatening With A Deadly Weapon (a Class C felony)

(i) Assault with A Deadly Weapon (a Class C felony)

(i) Fatstying Physical Evidence (a Class D misdemeanor)

(9) Temronizng (a Class D misdemeancr): and

(9) Assault (a Class D misdemeanor). (ODC - 2)

(On March 15, 2007, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the
Counts of Falstying Physical Evidence, Terrorzing and Assauit, all Class D misdemeanors.
(ove 3)

2. Indictment No. 06-414 (formery 06-54:

The Petition alleges that as a result of the January 4, 2006 incident set forth
‘above, Ms. Enna obtained a Protection From Abuse Order against Respondent. (Petition
1120, The Order contained a provision that asa condition of Respondent's release that he
hhave no contact with his spouse. On January 19, 2006, Respondent telephoned Mis. Enna
in Violation ofthis Order. As a resuit of Respondent's conduct, an indictment was issued
against him on two counts. (Petition 22; ODC - 4.) They were:

(0 Violation of Contition of Release (Class C felony); and

(8) Violation OF Protection From Abuse Order (Ciass D misdemeaner).

Respondent has admitted to the facts set forth in the Petition regarding the

incident and the counts in the indictment.

 
(On March 15, 2007, Respondent pled gulty tothe violation of Protection From
‘Abuse, a Class D misdemeanor. On the same date, he pled guity by way of an Alford plea
‘of te violation of Condition of Release, a Class C felony. (Amended Answer #123.)

3. Indictment Docket 06-633:

‘The Petition alleges that on February 28, 2006, Ms. Enna arrived at her home
with two of her children. Respondent was waiting a the home and approached the vehicle
when Ms, Enna arrived, The Petition alleges that Respondent pounded on the vehicle with
‘an object Ms. Enna believed was either aknife or a screwdriver and stabbed at the vehicle's
tires. Ms. Enna escaped with her chien and drove to the Police Department. (Petition
138) Respondent's answer to the allegations was, "Denied as stated, By way of further
answer, Respondent entered gully pleas as described...” (Amended Answer 36,)

AS a result of Respondents conduct on February 28, 2006, a Grand Jury for
the State of Maine on March 9, 2008 indicted Respondent on three counts (ODC - 7) as
folows:

(0 Violation OF Condition OF Release (a Class C felony):

(Violation Of Protection From Abuse Order (a Class D misdemeanor):

and

(@) Criminal Trespassing (a Class D misdemeanor)

(On Merch 15, 2007, Respondent pled guilty to and was convicted ofa Violation
(Of Protection From Abuse Order and Criminal Trespassing, both Ciass D misdemeanors.
(ODC - 6) On the same day. Respondent pled guilty by way of an Alford plea of the
Viclation of Condition Of Release. (ODC -6,)
4 Summary:

Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to three (3) Class
‘misdemeanors. He pled guiy to three (3) other Class D misdemeanors. And, he entered
‘Alford pleas to two (2) Class C felonies.

B. Rules Violates.
1 ident Has Violated Rule

 

Rule 3.4) provides in partthat’a lawyer shall not unlawful alter, destroy or
conceal a document or other materal having potential evidentiary vale. A lawyer shal not
counselor assist another person todo any such act” The Pettion alleges in Count | one
‘olaton ofthis Rule to which Respondenthas admited. (Petiton,p. 3.) Indictment Docket
08-26 contained count for Falsiving Physical Evidence, a Class D msdemeanor
Respondent pled nolo contendere to the crime and has admitted that his actions were in
violation of Rule 3.4(a). (Amended Petition 99)

2 Res t Has Violated Ru

Rules 3.4(c) provides in par that a lawyer shall not “knowingly disobey an
‘bligaton under the rues of buna" The Petition alleges Respondent violated this Rule
on four counts.

4 Count Vii ofthe Peition, ODC alleged that by telephoning Ms. Enna on
January 19, 2006, Respondent vclaed Rule 34(c) because he was in violation ofthe
Protection From Abuse Order issued by the Court ofthe State of Maine. (Pettion $25,
Respondent was indicted for his in Indictment Docket No. 06-414, (ODC-4.) Respondent
led quity to this Class D misdemeanor and has admitted his violation in his Amended
‘Answer (Amended Answer $125; ODG -5)

Count Villofthe Petition alleged hat when Respondent telephoned his spouse
‘on January 19, 2005, he was in Violation Of A Condition Of His Release On Bail. (Petition
{127,) Respondent was indicted in Indictment Docket No. 06-414 for this crime. Respondent
Centered an Alford plea of uity and has admitted the violation of Rule 3.4(c) in his Amended
‘Answer. (Amended Answer $127.)

Count Xill of the Petition alleged that when Respondent attacked his wife's
vehicle he was in violation of the Protection From Abuse Order entered by the Coutts ofthe
State of Maine. (Petition ¥ 40.) He was indicted ofthis crime in Indictment Docket No. 08-
1633. Respondent pled guilly tothe crime and admitted in his Amended Answer that he was
in Violation of the Protection From Abuse Order and thus in violation of Rule 3.4(¢)
(Amended Answer $40; ODC - 8)

Count XIV of the Petiion alleged that Respondent by attacking his wife's
vehicle was in Violation Of A Condition Of His Release On Ball, (Petition ]42.) He was
Indicted for ths crime in indictment Docket No. 06-833. (OC -7.) Respondent entered an
Alford ples of guily on this Class C felony and has admitted in his Amended Answer hat he
's in violation of 3.4(c). (Amended Answer 42; ODC - 8)

3. Respondent is in Violation of Rule 8.4(b):

Rule 8.4(b) provides that its professional misconduct for alawyerto “commit

 

2 criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or ness as
‘lawyer in other respects,” The Petition aleged eight counts where Respondent violated
Rue 8.40),
Count il aieged that Respondent violated Rule 8 4(b) by destroying the audio
tape for which he was indicted in Indictment Docket No. 06-26 for falsifying physical
‘evidence, a Class D misdemeanor. (Answer {| 11; ODC - 2.) Respondent pled nolo
‘contendere to this count and thus has admitted that he is in violation of Rule 8.4(b)
(Amended Answer} 11; ODC -3)

Count ll of the Petition alleged that Respondent engaged in a criminal act by
terrorizing his wife, a Class O misdemeanor. (Pettion $13.) Respondent was indicted of
Terrorizing in Indictment Docket No. 06-26. (ODC -2.) Respondent pled nolo contendere
tothis count and thus has admitted he isin violation of Rule 84(b). (Amended Answer 13;
ope -3)

‘Count IV ofthe Petition aleged that Respondent engaged in a criminal act by
assauiting his wife, a Class D misdemeanor. (Petition  15,) Respondent was indicted of
‘Assault in Incictment Docket No. 06-28. (ODC - 2.) Respondent pled nolo contendere to
this count and thus has admitted he isin violation of Rule 8.4(0). (Amended Answer 15;
ope -3)

Count ix ofthe Petition alleged that when Respondent telephoned his wife on
January 19, 2006 he engaged in criminal conduct consisting ofthe offense of Violation Of
Protection From Abuse. (Petition | 28) He was indicted on this offense in Indictment
Docket No, 06-414. (ODC- 4) Respondent pled guily to this Class D misdemeanor and
thus has admitted he is in violation of Rule 8.4(b). (Amended Answer 29; ODG - 5)

Count x of the Petition alleged that when Respondent telephoned his wife on
January 19, 2008, ne engaged in criminal conduct consisting ofthe offense of Violation of
Conditon OfRelease, aClass C felony. (Pettion 131.) Respondent entered an Aor plea
on that count and thus has admitted hei in violation of Rule 8 4(b). (Amended Answer
31,00¢-6)

Count XV ofthe Petition alleged that when Respondent attacked his wife's
‘vehicle he was in volaton of the Protection From Abuse Order entered by the Courts ofthe
State of Maine. (Petition 44.) He was indicted ofthis cme in indictment Docket No. 05-
633. (ODC.- 7.) Respondent pled guity othe crime and admitted in his Amended Answer
that he was in violation of the PFA Order and thus has admit he is in violation of Rule
8.40). (Amended Answer 44; 00C -8)

Count XVI ofthe Petton alleged that when Respondent attacked hs wie's
vehicle he was engaged in a ciminal act of Criminal Threatening. (Petiton 146) He was
incited for this crime in indiciment Docket No. 06-633. (ODC -7.) Respondent ples guty
tothis Class D misdemeanor and thus and thus has admitted tha heis in violation of 8.4(0)

Count XVII ofthe Petition alleged that Respondent by stacking his wife's
vehicle was in Violation Of A Condition OF His Release On Ball, (Pettion #48.) He was
‘ndted for this crime in indictment Docket No. 06-833, (ODC--7.) Respondent entered an
Aor plea of gulty on this Class felony and thus has amie he isin volaton of 8.4)
(Amended Answor 48.) (Amended Answer #36.)

4 Respo Viola 2.40

Rule 84(c) provides that ts professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage
‘n conduct involving dishonesty, aud, dece or misrepresentation” DC alleges that
Respondent violated this Rule on one count,

Count v of tne Petition alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct resulting
°
| conviction for falsifying physical evidence, a crime involving fraud, deceit andior
‘mistepresentation. (Pettion 17.) Respondent was indicted of the crime of Falsitying
Physical Evidence, a Class C misdemeanor in Indictment Docket No, 06-26. (ODC -2)
Respondent pled nolo contendere to this crime and in his Amended Answer has admitted
to violating Rule 8.4(c). (Amended Answer 9117; ODC - 3)

5. Respondent is in Violation of Rule 8.4(¢):

Rule 8.4(¢) provides that itis professional misconduct for alawyerto “engage
In conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." The ODC has alleged that
Respondent has violated Rule 8.4(4) on five counts,

Count VI alleged that Respondent vioiated Rule 8 4(4) by destroying the audio
tape for which he was in indicted in Indictment Docket No, 06-26 for falsifying physical
evidence, a Class D misdemeanor. (Petition | 19, ODC - 2) Respondent pled nolo
contendere to this count and thus has admitted he isin violation of Rule 6 4(d). (Amended
Answer $19; OBC -3.)

Count X! of the Petition aleged that when Respondent attacked his wife's

 

vehicle he was in violation ofthe Protection From Abuse Order entered by the Courts of the
State of Maine. (Petition 929.) He was indicted ofthis crime in Indictment Docket No. 06-
633. (ODC- 7.) Respondent pled guity tothe crime and admitted in his Amended Answer
that he was in violation of the PFA Order and thus has admitted he is in violation of Rule
8.4(d). (Amended Answer 23.)

Count Xi ofthe Petition alleged that when Respondent telephoned his wife on
January 19, 2006 he engaged in criminal conduct consisting ofthe offense of Violation of
Condition Of Release, a Class C felony. (Petiton 135.) Respondent was incited for this

10
‘crime in indictment Docket No. 06-414, (ODC -4) Respondent entered an Alford plea on
that count and thus admitted he was in volaton of Rue 8.4(0). (Amended Answer 35,

Court XVII of the Peton alleged that when Respondent stacked his wife's
‘voticle he was in Violation of the Protecton From Abuse Order entered by the Cour ofthe
State of Maine. Pettion 1150.) He was indicted ofthis crime in Indictment Docket No, 08-
693. (ODC-7,) Respondent ple guity othe crime and admitted in his Amended Answer
that he was in volton ofthe PFA Order and thus has admitted he isin volaton of Rule
8.4(), (Amended Answer 150)

Count XIX of the Petition alleges that Respondent by attacking his wife's
vehicle was in Violation of A Condition OF His Release On Ball. (Pettion 152) He was
indicted for this crime in indictment Docket No. 06-633. (ODC -7.) Respondent entered an
‘Allord plea of gui on this Class C felony and thus has admitted he is in olaton of 8.46)
(Amended Answer 152.)

IL FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
(1) Respondent is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court ofthe State of
Delaware, having been acmited in 1996. (Petition, Amended Answer 11.)
(2) Respondent was engaged in the private practice of law from the time of his
admission until May, 2008, at which time he stopped practicing due to a
medical disability. (T: 42.)
(3) On July 31, 2002, Respondent was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing

astreetin the City of Wimington, Delaware. He was diagnosed with traumatic

"
®

®

brain injury with numerous physical afer effects. His physical symptoms
‘resolved within six to twelve months. However, the brain injury and his mental
and cognitive effects remained symptomatic after his physical injuries had
healed. (7: 40-41.)

‘Subsequent to Respondent’ discontinuation of private practice in May, 2003,
Respondent continued receiving treatment for his cognitve disorder. The
‘extent of his treatments not evident fom the record. Respondent testified he
had seen numerous physician a of whom told him his cognitive deficiencies
‘would be permanent. They weated him with various medications which were
ofltiebenefitohim, Respondenttestiied he became depressed. (T:47-48)
Between May, 2003 and January, 2005, Respondent's family elocatedtothe
State of Maine. (7. 48) Respondent folowed shorty thereater
Respondent and his wife were attempting to reconcile differences that had
arisen between them. On January 4, 2006, Respondent was living in the
marital home. (T: 123.)

On January 4, 2006, Respondent and his wife were arguing in the presence
of thee oftheir minor chléren. The argument escalated and Respondent
became aware that his wifehad atape recorder and tape and was recording
the argument. Respondent put a knife to his wife's throat and demanded
she give him the tape. Respondents wife was able to escape but
Respondent caught her and punched her inthe stomach numerous tines
and took the tape from her. Respondent went to another room in the house
wile at the same time Respondent's wife called the police, who upon

2

 
 

o

@

@

(10)

arriving at the house found the tape recorder smashed and the odor of
Something that had bumed. The police could not locate the tape.
Respondent was removed trom the house by the police. (ODC - 2; T: 54.
58.)
{As a result ofthis altercation, Respondent was indicted on five counts by a
Grand Jury sitting in the State of Maine, (ODC - 2.) The five counts were:

()Creminal Threatening With A Deadly Weapon (a Class C

felony)
(il) Assault With A Deadly Weapon (a Class C felony):
(ii) Fatsitying Physical Evidence (a Class D misdemeanor);

(i) Terorizing (a

 

188 D misdemeanor); and
(¥) Assault a Class D misdemeanor)

Respondent pled nolo contendere to counts (i) (w) and (v). Counts () and (i)
were dismissed. (ODC- 3.) The plea was entered on March 15,2007. ODC-6.)
Immediately after the incident on January 4, 2008, Respondents wie
Cbtained a Protection From Abuse Order from the Maine Courts. (T: 56)
Respondent was to have no contact with his wife nor his children. (T: 87.)

(On January 19, 2008, Respondent called his wife on the telephone.
Respondent was aware that this telephone call was in violation of the terms:

of the Protection From Abuse Order. (Petition, Amended Answer 21.)

‘On March 9, 2006, the Grand Juryin the State of Maine indicted Respondent

‘on two counts. (ODC-4.) Count | was a Violation OF Condition Of Release

(On Bait which required that he have no contact with his spouse. This was &

13
 

my

(12)

(3)

Class C felony. Count i was a Violation OF The Protection From Abuse
(Order This was a Class D misdemeanor. Respondent pled guily by way
ofan Alford plea to Counts | and plead guity to Count ton March 15, 2007
(o0e -6)

(On February 3, 2008, Respondent consumed al ofthe medications he had
avaliable to him in an apparent suicide attempt. (T: 58) Respondent
{estiied ne was asieep fortwo days, aftr which he didnot seek immediate
‘medical teatment. (T: 114-115)

(On February 8, 2006, Respondent had an arbitration heating in Wington,
Delaware in regard to his nsurance claim anising from his July, 2002 motor
vehicle accident. (T- 69) Respondent testified he drove himself to the
‘por in Maine and few to Philadelphia to atlend the arbitration. He was
able to testty and participate inthe arbiraton proceeding. As aresultof the
arbitration, Respondent received a substantial arbitration award. (T: 116.)
(On February 8, 2008, Respondent met wih his psychiatist, Or. Burton
Weiss, in Philacelphia. (T: $8.) The notes prepared by Or, Weiss of his
‘evaluation of Respondent indicate thatthe Respondent was seeing him for
“depression, suicide attempt, suicidal ideas.” (ODC - 9.) In his Interval
History, Dr. Welss related that Respondent “etumed for urgent appointment
‘fom Maine." Respondent related that he had stopped taking medicatons
1 month ago and had become progressively more depressed. He futher
‘elated that on February 4, 2008, he had taken allof the medications he was
then saving in an attempt to kit himseil. The Interval History makes no

4
(14)

15)

‘mention of the fact that Respondent had returned to Wimington for an
arbitration hearing the day prio to seeing Or. Weiss nor is there a mention
‘of his arrest and indictments. The Mental Status Examination of Dr. Weiss
{found that Respondent was “ale and cooperative.” Dr. Weiss did conclude
that(Respondent) has cognitive, memory and behavior control defits which
{are the arising (sic) from his accident of 7/31/02." Dr. Weiss suggested
immediate hospitalization of Respondent to Friend's Hospital for psychiatric
‘evaluation

Respondent was admitted to Friend's Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsyivania
fon February 9, 2008. (ODC - 10.) it was noted on discharge *he stil
continued to struggle with complications of his mental problems from his
‘traumatic brain injury. By discharge, he was free trom suicidal deations and,
highly motivated for out patent treatment” After discharge from Friend's
Hospital, Respondent retumed tothe State of Maine. (T: 61)

(On February 28, 2008, Respondent went to the marital home and waited
‘outside for his wife, who was not home at the time, to return, (OC - 7.)
\When his wife returned home, she had with her two of their minor chiden
Respondent approached the car and according to his wife, began pounding
‘on the car and was holding a long, sharp object which she beleved was
ether a knife ora screwdriver. Respondent's wife stated that Respondent
‘attempted to stab the tres of the car. She was able to leave in her vehicle
‘and immediately drove to the police station. (Petition {| 36.) Respondent
oes not dispute the fact that Ne went to the martal home. (T: 66.) He does

6
 

(16)

Aispute the characteizaton of the conftntaton with his spouse. (T: 66)
(On March 1, 2006, Respondent admitted himself to Portsmouth Regional
Hospital, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. (ODC - 11.) He related his history
of injury and disabilty to the admiting physician, He also related the
accusations of his wile regarding the confrontation of January 4, 2006
though he denied the characterization. Respondent also related that after
discharge from Friend's Hospital he had gone back to Maine to talk to his
\wife-Wwhich clearly was a vltion of the restraning order” The Portsmouth
Hospital Discharge Summary states, “The psychiatrist who had worked with
hm for a numberof years as an out patient nthe area the patient had been
living nin PennsyWvaria expressed quite abitof concems aboutthe patient's
Potential for dangerousness to sufer others. He also gave us a sense that
the patient had had some significant problems, pemnaps personalty-wise,
recto his bain injury.” During his hesptalizaton, the physicians developed
further information regarting Respondent through conversations. with
Respondent's criminal attomey. The physicians at Portsmouth Regional
Hospital determined the had a duty to warn his spouse upon discharge. Dr.
Seaudett of Portsmouth Regional Hospital reported “| did not see any
‘evidence of acute dangerousness to self or others, and therefore didnot see
‘ny reason to involuntay hosptalize the patient. He was permitted to be
discharged at his request. There was no evidence of psychosis. He was
alert, and fully onented and his mood had been improved for several days
Por fo discharge.” Because the hospital was unable to contact

16
«ny

(18)

(19)

20)

Respondent's wife atthe time of his discharge, they contacted the police in
the area where she resides. The police made arrangements for Respondent
to be arrested by the Portsmouth Police when he was discharged. The
discharge diagnosis was “major depression, recurrent, severe, possible
‘organic effective disorder related to head injury, possible impulse contro!
difficulty secondary to head injury.”

Upon discharge from Portsmouth Regional Hospital, Respondent was
‘artested and incarcerated. He remained incarcerated until December, 2007,
«r63)

‘On March 9, 2006, a Grand Jury of the State of Maine indicted Respondent
fon three counts. (ODC - 7.) Count | was a Violation Of Condition of
Release, a Class C felony. Count Il was a Violation Of Protection From
Abuse Order, @ Class D misdemeanor. Count Ill was Criminal Threatening
Class D misdemeanor. On March 15, 2007, Respondent pled guilty by an
Alford plea to Count | He pled guilty to Counts il and ill. (ODC -6.)

In his criminal prosecution, Respondent did not raise as a defense his
cognitive disorders or mental health condition. Respondent testified that he
was intended to do so, however, due to technical procedural mistake by his,
ofense counsel, he was not permitted to raise the defenses. (T: 66-67.)
While incarcerated, Respondent ceased taking all medications, (T:72) On
September 9, 2006, Respondent wrote to Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company regarding his disabilty claim. (ODC- 12.) Respondent noted that
his last treatment had occurred ia November, 2008, Respondent wrote, ‘My

7
en

2

‘current lack of treatment and medication wth respect to my former disabilty
are not a function of the incarceration. Rather. they reflect a change in my
status ~ | believe | am fully capable of returning to ful time employment as
‘an atorney and intend to do so immediately upon my release. | donot any
tonger suffer from any medical or psychological impairment that would
preventme from retumingto the successful practee oflaw” Respondent det
not have any psychological teatment for his mental condition while
incarcerated, (T: 134-138)
By Order dated June 18, 2007, the Honorable John O'Nel, a Judge ofthe
Maine District Cour, entered a Dvorce Judgmentgranting advore between
Respondent and his wife. (ODC - 13) In the Divorce Judgment (12. itis
staled: “The Court specially nds that the conduct of the Defendart
(Respondent) toward Plaintif (is spouse) and the chidren has been one
that has 2 long history of violence and abusive behavior dating back to
periods of ime long before his accident and the use of Topomax*
Respondent explained the effect ofthe Alford pleas tothe two felony counts
in the State of Maine, (T: 64.) He testified that these were termed felonies
‘ince they occurred inthe context ofa domestic relations case. According
to Respondent, one ofthe felony charges is to be dismissed in December
2008 and the other felony charge reduced to a misdemeanr presuming he
has no further incidents or vilations of his Oprotation. There is 0
independent verficaton of recor from the State of Maine concerning the
oct ofthe Mord pass

18
(23) While stit incarcerated, Respondent began working for a law fim as
Paralegal under a work retease program in the State of Maine. (T: 123.) He
's employed as a paralegal. Respondent believes that his legal judgment
‘and abilty to practice law has returned, (T: 128.) He is able to read and
comprehend complexlegaldocuments, statutes and other writings. (T: 128 )
He has not had any psychological treatment but has been assessed by @
Psychologist. He is no longer receiving continuing medical or psychological
care, (T: 141.) He has not stayed current withthe law. (T: 129)

(24) David A. Harts, Esq,,an attorney admitted in the State of Delaware, testified
fon behalf of Respondent. (T: 15.) Mr. Harris had been employed with
Moris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, LLP for 12 years. He testified that he and
Respondent began practicing with that firm at the same time and became
friends. Respondent left Mostis, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP in
approximately 1999 and though Mr. Harris and Respondent remained
friends, they did lose touch. Mr. Haris testified that he had reviewed the
©0C Petition and that didnot describe the Respondent as he knew him. He
{further testified that it had been eight years since he last had contact with
Respondent

(25) Respondent offered the testimony of Francis Jackson, a member of the Bar
of the State of Maine. (T: 20.) Respondent is employed by Mr, Jackson as
2 paralegal. Mr. Jackson testifed that Respondent reviews the facts of
various files in his office and prepares memorandums of law. Mr. Jackson

1
28)

en

thas not noted any cognitive deficiencies in Respondent's abilty 1 pertorm
is work nor has he noted any deficiencies in his work habits that would
affect his capabity nor any instances of lack of control or abusiveness. Mr
Jackson testified that he would hire Respondent as an attomey if the
<ecision on ODC Pettion is favorable tothe Respondent

Respondent offered the testimony of Francis Giuliano, a member ofthe Bat
of the State of New Jersey. (T: 85.) Mr. Glulano testified he has known
Respondent through his daughter whe both were attending law school at
the University of Pennsylvania, Mr Giuliano had employed Respondent to
prepare legal memorandum for him while a student and had considered
ofering Respondent a postion wih his fim. Mr.Giullane had an opportunity
to observe the Respondent both before and after his motor vehicie accident
and fete was sil abe to converse and respond rationally to conversations
but seemed fat emtionaly

Respondent offered the testimony of Carol Tavani, M.D. (Ti 146) Or
Tavani is @ Board-crtiied newopsychiatist and is the psyehiatist who
serves on behalf ofthe Professional Guidance Commitee ofthe Delaware
State Bar Association. Dr. Tavan ested she had reviewed numerous
medical records regarding Respondent as well as papers concerning his
<ivorce, his awsuit against his insurance carer and the ODG Peston, She
‘pine that Respondent had a brain injury which compounded a concussion
te sutfered whilein collage. (T:1$2-153,) This sulted in a mood disorder
with dopressive features and a cogntwve disorder. (T: 153.) Or. Tavan's

20
 

testimony was more in the nature of Respondent's current fitness to return
to the practice of law rather than an analysis of his mental condition atthe
time of the crimes which he committed in the State of Maine. Dr. Tavani
testified that on the surface Respondent looked and acted normal. however,
it's her opinion that further testing would have to occur before she would be
‘prepared to opine that he is capable of undertaking all the responsibilty of
‘an attorney. She found that Respondent is resistant to medical treatment
and appears to be in denial ofthe nature and extent of is injury. (T° 167-
170) AS of the date of the hearing, Dr. Tavani would not recommend

Respondent be permitted to practice aw, (T: 169.)

IV. _ STANDARD OF PROOF

Alegations of professional misconduct alleged by the Ofice of Dsciinary
Counse's Petition for Discipline must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. (Rule
15, ise. Proc. Rule) Respondent has acknowedged that he was guity ofthe felony and
‘misdemeanor charges for the crimes commited inthe State of Maine and thus isin
violation of Rues 3 (a) 34(¢),84(0), BAe) and 84(d), In addition, cenied copies of 2
Judgment of Conviction of he crimes committed by Respondent have been made part
ofthe record. (ODC Exh. 3, O0C Exh. §, and ODC Exh. 8) Pursuant to Rule 1(b) ofthe
ues of Dscplinary Procedure, this is prima facie evidence ofthe commission of that
rime inthis discipinary hearing, The only issue remeining for the Board's determination

| the appropriate recommendation of sanctions.

a

 
V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

Rule 1(a) of the Rules of Discipinary Procedure invest the inherent power and
‘authority in the Detaware Supreme Cour to regulate the legal profession inthe State of
Delaware. This Rule vests in the Court the responsibilty to “maintain appropriate
standards of professional conduct fr all lawyers subject to its jurisdiction.” Accordingly,
‘any lawyer admitted to practice in the State of Delaware is subject to the disciptnary
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Rule 5(@). Disc. Proc, Rules.) In an exercise ofits
Powers, the Court has appointed the members ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility
{to conduct hearings, make factual findings and make recommendations regarding
‘appropriate sanctions, in any, in disposition of éscipinary matters. (Rules 4 and 2, Disc
Proc. Rules.) The Court has jurisdiction over lawyers admitted inthe State of Delaware
even ifthe action which gives rise tothe disciplinary proceeding did not occur while the
_attomey was providing legal services and the action occured in another jussdicton. inthe
‘mater of David K, Brewster, $87 A 2d 1087 (Del. 1991)

B._Parties’ Positions on Sanctions

(0DC argues that Respondent's guilty pleas tothe various crimes commited in the

State of Maine constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as folows:

Comes Rules Violated
Falsifying physical evidence Rules 3.4(a); 8 (b); 8.4(¢)
8408)
Terrorizing Rule 8.4(0)

2
Assault Rule 8.4(b)
Violation of condition of release Rutes 3.4(¢); 8.4(b); and
'8.4(4) (two counts of each)

Violation Of Protection From Abuse Order Rules 3.4(c): 8.4(b): and
'8.4(4) (two counts of each)

Criminal Threatening Rule 8.40)

(ODC asserts thatthe felony criminal charges to which Respondent pled guity are
‘rounds for disbarmentin the State of Delaware. tis argued that the Supreme Court has
consistently imposed the sanction of disbarment for felonies, ODC further asserts the fact
the felony charges may be reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed entirely upon
completion of probation does not negate that Respondent engaged in felony conduct
(7-254,) In mitigation, ODC argues that Respondent has failed to prove that his brain
injuries caused his criminal behavior in 2006 and thus shoud not be considered as a
imiigating factor. (-272.) ODC also argued that even had there been sufcient evicence
to show thatthe Respondent suffered from a mental iiness that would have contrbuted
tothe actions fr which he was convicted, this isnot necessary a mitigating factor inthe
imposition of sanctions.

Respondent through counsel argued thatthe criminal activiy in which Respondent
engaged occurred outside the practice of law and not at atime when he was practicing in
Delaware o physicaly in the State (7-275,) Respondent further argued tha the crimes

the committed did not involve fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude, Though the crimes are

 

acknowledged, Respondent argues that he has expressed remorse and suffered coltate
‘consequences for his actions. He also asserts that in mitigation he was suffering the

Cumulative effects of two brain injuries and the side etfects of prescription mecications that

23
contibued to his actions. Respondent suggests that the sanction recommended be si
months’ suspension retroactive tothe Cours entry ofthe Interim Suspension Order on
‘Apa 30, 2007,

©. Respondent's Misconduct

DC and Respondent have sipuleted to Respondent's underlying criminal
convictions and violation ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct heretofore set forth inthis
Report. Nevertheless, the Board must examine Respondent's misconduct independently
in formulating its recommendation for sanctions. Respondent commited two felony
criminal acts to which he pled guily on an Alford plea. Even though he asserts inthe
course of the hearing that he was suffering from Brain injury and cognitive disorder,
Respondent admits he was aware that his ations in commiting the two felonies to which
he pled guity, specifically violation of his concition of release in two separate instances,
‘was commited knowingly and intenonaty. (T-66.) Respondent aso tested that he dit
physically assault his wife on January 4, 2006 in the presence of three of his minor
children. (7: 54.) He was aware that a Protection From Abuse Order had been entered
against him and despite being aware o the consequences, he vilated that Order, (T-61.)
Furr, by pleading uityo Criminal Tiveatening, Respondent admitted thathe knowingly
engaged in such conduct against his wife, this time jn the presence of two of his minor
ehiceen

In te Amended Answer. Respondent has denied the characterization inthe ODC
Pettion concerning the assauits on his wife which occurred on January 4, 2006 and on
February 28, 2008. The alleges mischaracteization on January 4 2006 is that
Respondent held a knife to ha wite's throat. (Petition 8.) He does not deny the fac that

24
he stuck his wife several tines inthe presence of his children though he denied the
description of events in the Petition. As to the February 28, 2006 incident, Respondent
offered no explanation of what occurred when he went to is wile's house. However, he
stated, knew the Order was in place. On some level, obviously, | knew that twas wrong
ogo tothe house and I should not have done it. | didn't contol the impulse to got the
house. twent anyway.” (7-62)

It's obvious tothe Board Panel thal the Respondent even though suffering fom
some evel of cognitive defect, was aware and knew the consequences of his ations. He
‘was further aware that there was an outstanding Protection From Abuse Order that
prohibited him from having contact with his family as a contion of his release on bail, but
the knowingly violated the Order, The PFA Order and the condition for his release on bail

was violated on both January 19, 2008 and February 28, 2006,

VL SANCTIONS
‘A. Standard for Imposing Sanctions
In determining the appropriate sanction for lawyer misconduct, the Delaware
Supreme Court has adopted the ABA Standards For Imaosing Lawyer Sanctions. (The
ABA Standards.)

‘The American Bar Association has developed standards for
imposing disciplinary sanctions in which a court considers the
following factors: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental
state; (¢) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct. and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating
factors. (ABA Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
Standard 30, at25 (approved February, 1986).) In Re Clyne,
581 A2d 1118, 1125 (Dol. 1990)

25
‘The record establishes that Respondent's conviction forthe comes identfed inthis
report inthe State of Maine constitutes clear and convincing evidence of volaton of his
‘ethical duties tothe legalprofession. Although his conduct may not have injured a specific
‘lent his conduct was such that he demonstrated a knowing disregard for his ethical duty
{and distegard forthe law which seriously undermines the legal profession and reflects
‘adversely on all members of the legal profession and, particularly, members ofthe Bar of
the State of Delaware. Though Respondentmay have had @ recognizable cognitive defect
at the time, the Board finds that there was no evidence presented that specifically
<iagnosed the condition in January or February, 2008 when the cimes were committed
and there was no evidence presented in the record which opined with a reasoned medical
probabilty that as a result ofthe cognitive defect, Respondent's mental state was such that
he dd not commit the crime knowingly or intentionally. Thus, the Board must accept the
fact that Respondent pled guity t the crimes. On March 15, 2007, the Respondent
appeared before the Honorable Elen A. Gorman, Superior Court Justlce ofthe Superior
Court of he Staie of Maine, and entered guity pleas. Justice Gorman atthe conclusion
of questoning of Respondent concerning the various counts stated: “Based upon
(Respondent's) answers to my questions | am satisied that his pleas are knowing and
voluntary.” (ODC Exh. 6, p. 18)

5. _Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

‘ABA Standords For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 9.22, identifies
aggravating foctrs to be considered in assigning @ disciplinary sanction. Among the
aggravating factors which are presertin this instance are apattern of misconduct, mutiple

26
offenses. and the vulnerabity of the witim. In a short period of tine, Respondent
physialy assaulted his spouse on two occasions inthe presence of his minor chideen
In adaiton, he knowingly and intentionally violated Protection From Abuse Orders issued
by te State of Maine on two separate oscasions. Not only does this evidence a pattern
cof misconduct, but there were multiple offense committed to which Respondent pled gut
‘Addtionally. the offenses were committed agains! vunerable victims. These were ofenses

not only against his wife but against is chidren. As a resultof the offenses and the nature

 

cfthem, Respondentis prohibited rom seeing his chtdren under any circumstance unless
his wife in her sole discretion determines would be appropriate

‘Te Board Panel must also consider mibgating factors ints recommendation othe
out, The mitigating factors are set forth in ABA Standards For imposing Lewyer
Sanctions, Standard 9,32, The factors which must be considered inthis instance are
absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, full and free
disclosure to Disciplinary Board or cooperative attude toward procedure, characte or
reputation, remorse and physical or mental disabiliy or impairment. The Boar finds that
Respondent oes not have a prior disciplinary record and thatthe Respondent has stated
remorse for his actions. Iti also noted that Respondent was cooperative withthe
Disciptinary Board these proceedings. According to hiswitnesses, he was also a person
cof good character before his automobile accident and according to Mr Jackson's of good
characters a paralegal. The primary mitigating facors that Respondent argued were his
personal or emotional problems and the mental disability or impairment. Atthe time ofthe
crimes, Respondent and his wife were going though dificult mes, to say the least. They
‘wore in the midst ofa divorce and this escalated tothe assauit that occurred. However,

27
personal or emotional problems do not permit someone to physically assault another
person or to violate specific Court Orders. Respondent has alo argued tha his mental
Consition caused or contrbuted tothe crimes. As noted, there is no evidence of record to
establish casual relationship between the two. In fact, there appears to be some
‘incongruous facts when arguing the mental factor. For example, Respondent related that
‘on February 8, 2008 he took an overdose of medication which rendered him comatose for
{wo days. Then, without seeking medica! weatment, he was able o drive himself othe
airport in Main and fy to Wilmington, where he parcipated in an arbitration hearing on
February 8, 2008 fr his insurance ciaim for underinsured insurance coverage. Only ater
that was completed did he seek medical weatment through Dr, Weiss (Friend's Hospital.

‘After two weeks at Friend's Hospital, he retuned to the State of Mai

 

where he again
confronted his wife. Respondent then went fo Portsmouth Regional Hospital in the State
‘of New Hampshire upon learning that a warrant hed been issued for him, thus avoiding
arrest After he was artested and incarcerated, without any further medical treatment, the
Respondent claims that he fuly recovered from his cognitive disorder and s now ready to
resume the practice of law, When taken in combination, these facts do not miigate the
actions of Respondent at the time he commitled the various crimes. The evidence
presented regarding Respondents recovery are more in the nature of what would be
‘expected ata reinstatement hearing rather than a hearing on sanctions.

©. Caso Law Analysis,

‘The Board Pane''s recommendation ofan appropriate sanction is meant to assist
the Cour, butits not determinative. In Re Baley, 821 A.24 851 (Del, 2003). The Court
“has wide lattude in determining the form of discipline, and the Court wll view the

28
‘ecommended sanction to assure that i is appropriate, fair and consistent with. prior

 

disciplinary decisions." id, at 877. Thus, prudence dictates that the Board Panel carefully
review prior disciplinary precedent in making ts recommended sanctions to the Court

Respondent directed the Board Panel to a digest of cases involving violations of
Disciptnary Rule 8.4(b). (T-275.) However, the focus was primarily on three decisions:
In Re McBride, 571, A.2d. 787 (Del. 1990); In Re Melvin, 807 A.24 $60 (Del. 2002) and
{In Re Gielata, 993 A.2d 1249 (Del. 2007). Respondent argued that the McBride case
stood for the proposition that an attomey suffering for a brain injury can be found tohave
presented mitigating evidence forthe imposition of any sanctions. Mr. McBride was found
to be suttering from a brain tumor which the medical evidence in that case revealed had
‘caused him to neglect his clients and procrastinate in his legal work. in ight of that finding,
the disciplinary action was terminated due to the extraordinary circumstances of Mr.
McBride's situation. That situation is distinguishable from the current case by the factthat
Respondent has admitted that he knowingly and intentionally engaged in conduct in
violation ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct

‘The Respondent to the Gietata case for the proposition that the crime which Mr.
Gielata pled gully to was one involving fraud and dishonesty. However, Mr. Gietata’s
crime was not felony and it was a single crime and not multiple crimes as's the case now
before the Board panel. In Gielata, the Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand upon
Mr. Gielata for his violation ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct, and no medical records
‘of his condition atthe time of the alleged violation were part of the record,

Respondent also directed the Board Panel to the Melvin decision, Mr. Melvin was.
indited on a felony count of Tampering with Physical Evidence and two misdemeanors of

28

 
Criminal Contempt ofa Protection From Abuse Order and Hindering Prosecution. In Re
Melvin, dat 652. Based ona plea agreement, the State of Delaware dismissed the felony
count and Mir, Melvin pled guily tothe misdemeanors. The Board Panel recommended
8 one year suspension, The Supreme Court determined that the appropriate suspension
was 18 months. Unike the case now pending, Melvin involved a gulty plea on two
misdemeanors. The Respondent in this case has pled guity to two felonies and six
imsdemeanors

‘006 argues that the Delaware Supreme Court has consistently imposed the
sanction of disbarment on attorneys who have been convicted or pled guity to felonies.
For tha proposition, ODC cirected the Board Panelto ABA Standard For imposing Lawyer
Sanctions 8.1 and 7.1. (7-258-260,) Specific reference was then made to decisions ofthe
Supreme Court where felony convictions or pleas have resulted in disbarment. The cases
cited are in Re Fink, 825 A.2¢ 238 (Del, 2003) In Re Clyne, 851 A 2d 1118 (Del. 1980)
In Be Dorsey, 683 A2d 1046 (Del, 1996), In Re Funk, 742 A.2d 861 (Del. 1990), and In
[Re Fteebery, (Dol. No. 113, 2008). In each of these cases, the lawyer was guity of
committing a felony and in each case the Supreme Court imposed disbarment as the
ppropriste sanction

‘The Board Panel has considered the facts presented by ODC and Respondent and
the Delaware authorty relied upon by both partes and thelr respective arguments on the
sanctions to be imposed. The Board Panels not persuaded thata sic month suspension
fetroacive to April 30, 2007 is an appropiate sanction forthe conduct exhibited by
Respondent. Respondent pled quiy to two felony counts. Though both pleas were Aford
ples, ithas been recognized that such apes forall intents and purposes the same as

30
‘a guity plea in any other fashion. See State v. Connor, 2005 WL 147931 at ins. 15, 16
‘and 17 (Del. Super)

Vil. BOARD'S RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE

In view of Respondent’ felony and misdemeanor convictions inthe State of Maine
and his resuting violations of Rules 3.4(2), 3.4), 84(0), 8.4(c) and B.4(@), the Board
Panel recommends the sanction of pemanent disbarment be imposed. In ight of
Delaware precedenton felony criminal conduct by Delawarelawyers the Board Panel tinds
that neither aggravating nor mitgating factors weigh inthis sanction analysis. The Board
Panel acknowiedges that Respondent has presonted numerous mitigating factors which
under diferent circumstances may have had a bearing on the recommended sanctions:
however. the consistent imposition ofthe sanction ofésbarmentby the Delaware Supreme
Court when a tawyer has commited a felony, compels the Board Panel to set aside the
mitigating factors and to follow precedence. In making this recommendation, the Board
Pane’ focus & upon Respondent's numerous volations ofthe Delaware Lawyers Rules
of Professional Conduct, the nature and number ofthe crimes committed and how the
crimes and violations ofthe Rules adversely refect on Respondent's fitness as a Delaware

lawyer, and his adverse reflection on the legal profession in Delaware,

at

 
For the foregoing reasons, the Board Panel recommends in this case that the

sanction of permanent disbarment be imposed.

Pool

DAVIO N-RUTT, ESQUIRE
Board Chairman’

 

WARK. REARDON, ESQUIRE
Board Member

Dates: December 22, 2008

2

 
For the foregoing reasons, the Board Panel recommends in thie case that the

‘sanction of permanent disbarment be imposed.

—Daewdl 77 MAR

oat? RUT, ESQUIRE
Board Chairman

YVONNE ANDERS GORDON, Fad

Board yj
fon. EAROOR ESGURE— —

 

Dated: December 22, 2008

2
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF A BOARD CASE NO. 44, 2008

MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

BRADLEY J. ENNA,
RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

|, DAVID N. RUTT. ESQ,, hereby certify a copy of the Report of the Board on
Professional Responsibility with regard to the above captioned matter was sent via E-mail,
this 29” day of December, 2008, to the folowing

Charles Stanina, E54
Finger & Slanina, LLC

"724 Yorkiyn Road

Stone Mil, Suite 210
Hockessin, DE 19707
cslanina@delawaroup com

Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esq
fice of Disciplinary Counsel
'820 North French Street
‘Wimington, DE 19801
patricia schwartz@state deus

Stephen D. Taylor, Esa
‘Supreme Court of Delaware
P.O Box 1097

‘Wilmington, DE 19898-1997
Steve Taylor@state.de us

Karen L. Vaiinura. Esq
(One Roney Square

P.O. Bor 636
‘Wilmington, DE 19899-0636
shu com

 

   

David N. Rut, Esa,
Board Chairman
Board on Professional Responsibilty