Title: Matter of Thompson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF A  
 
§ 
MEMBER OF THE BAR OF  
§ 
No. 378, 2006 
THE SUPREME COURT OF   
§ 
THE STATE OF DELAWARE  
§ 
Board Case Nos. 5 and 6, 2006 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
JOHN J. THOMPSON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Respondent.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  August 29, 2006 
   Decided:  November 8, 2006 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on Professional 
Responsibility of the Supreme Court.  Suspension Imposed. 
 
 
 
Matthew F. Boyer, Esquire, of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for John J. Thompson. 
 
 
 
Michael S. McGinnis, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington, 
Delaware. 
 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM: 
 
 
 2
This is an attorney discipline matter involving charges of professional 
misconduct against John J. Thompson.  Thompson has been a member of the 
Delaware Bar since 1976.  The Board of Professional Responsibility found thirteen 
violations by Thompson of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“DLRPC”).  The violations stem from his failure to comply with the terms of his 
probation, making false representations to this Court, failure to timely file tax 
returns, and failure to file memoranda on behalf of a client to the Family Court 
resulting in dismissal of claims. The Board has recommended a three-year 
suspension with the possibility of reinstatement in two years.   
Thompson does not contest any of the violations, but argues that he should 
be eligible for reinstatement between six months to one year.  He contends that this 
shorter waiting period would amply protect the public, is warranted by mitigating 
factors in this case, and is consistent with analogous precedent.  The Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has responded to each of Thompson’s objections 
and has requested a suspension consistent with the Board’s recommendation.  We 
find that the Board gave appropriate weight to the aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances present and that its recommendation is consistent with the public 
policy objectives of Delaware’s lawyer disciplinary system.      
In February 2003, this Court imposed upon Thompson a disciplinary 
sanction consisting of a public reprimand and a three-year probation for violating 
 3
DLRPC 1.15(d), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).1  The terms of Thompson’s probation required 
him to consult with a practice monitor every month for one year and then quarterly 
for the remainder of his probation.  His practice monitor, Bayard Marin, Esq., was 
required to provide quarterly reports to the ODC.  Thompson violated his probation 
by failing to provide three monthly bookkeeping affidavits in 2003 and two 
quarterly bookkeeping affidavits in 2005. 
In addition to reporting to his practice monitor, Thompson was also required 
to complete a 30-month audit.  Joseph McCullough, an auditor for the Lawyers’ 
Fund for Client Protection conducted the 30-month audit on October 19, 2005.2  
McCullough found that Thompson had $6,864.59 of unidentified funds in his 
escrow account.3  The ODC requested that Thompson respond in writing 
explaining what steps were taken to identify the funds.  Thompson did not  
respond.  As of February 2006, Thompson had $9,857.07 of unidentified funds in 
his escrow account.  Thompson filed false Certificates of Compliance with this 
Court in 2004 and 2005 stating that his escrow accounts contained no unidentified 
client funds.  
                                          
 
1 In re Thompson, 818 A.2d 151 (Del. 2003) (TABLE). 
2 Mr. McCullough began to contact Thompson to schedule the audit in late August, but 
Thompson did not reply to letters or phone calls until late September. 
3 A Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection audit in 2002 revealed $7,091.00 of unidentified funds 
in Thompson’s escrow account, a basis for Thompson’s discipline in 2003.  
 4
The 30-month audit also uncovered Thompson’s failure to timely file his 
2002, 2003 and 2004 federal, state and city tax returns.  Thompson filed his 2002 
federal, state and local tax returns in September 2005.  Further, Thompson did not 
file his 2003 and 2004 federal and state tax returns until 2006.  His 2005 tax 
returns are currently on extension.  He falsely represented to this Court in 2004 and 
2005 that all of his taxes were timely filed. 
In August 2003, Thompson began representing Ms. Darlene Martin in a 
divorce matter.  The Family Court heard Thompson’s motion to show cause on 
behalf of Ms. Martin alleging that her ex-husband failed to pay Ms. Martin her 
share of the proceeds from the sale of their marital home on July 22, 2005.  
Thompson was instructed by the Family Court to file post-trial memoranda on 
several issues in the case.  Thompson did not file the submissions by the August 5 
deadline and did not respond to the Family Court’s status report request.  On 
September 8, the Family Court dismissed all the post-trial issues. 
Thompson also did not respond to Ms. Martin’s inquiries about the status of 
her proceedings.  In November 2005, Ms. Martin went to Thompson’s office and 
spoke with him.  He admitted that he made a mistake and would rectify the 
problem.  On December 16, 2005, having heard nothing from Thompson, Ms. 
Martin filed a complaint with the ODC.  The ODC notified Thompson of the 
complaint and requested a written response by January 4, 2006.  Thompson did not 
 5
respond.  Thompson eventually filed the appropriate papers in Ms. Martin’s case 
and the Family Court entered orders on August 21, 2006 providing Ms. Martin 
with her share of the equity of her marital home.   
At issue in this case is the discipline to be imposed upon Thompson.  The 
Board’s recommendation is helpful to the Court, but it is not binding.4  “The 
inherent and exclusive authority for disciplining members of our Bar is vested in 
this Court.”5  When determining an appropriate sanction for lawyer misconduct, 
this Court “looks to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as a model 
for determining the appropriate discipline warranted under the circumstances of 
each case.”6  The ABA’s four factors to consider include “(a) the ethical duty 
violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental state; (c) the extent of the actual or potential 
injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) aggravating and mitigating 
factors.”7 
The Board found that Thompson violated at least three ethical duties for 
which the ABA recommends suspension.8  In addition, the Board found that 
                                          
 
4 In re Froelich, 838 A.2d 1117, 1120 (Del. 2003). 
5 In re Shamers, 873 A.2d 1089, 1096 (Del. 2005). 
6 In re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851, 866 (Del. 2003). 
7 Id. 
8 The Board found that Thompson violated (i) ABA Standard 4.42(a) by knowingly failing to 
perform services for a client and causes injury; (ii) ABA Standard 7.2 by knowingly engaging in 
conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causing injury to a client, the 
public or legal system; and (iii) ABA Standard 8.2 by engaging in similar acts for which he has 
been disciplined for in the past. 
 6
Thompson acted knowingly with regard to each count.  Ms. Martin suffered actual 
injury by Thompson’s failure to make timely filings in the Family Court.   His 
failure resulted in substantial delay before she was awarded the equity of her 
marital home.  Thompson also injured the legal system by making false 
representations on his Certificates of Compliance.     
The Board found seven aggravating factors present in this case, including: 
(1) Thompson’s prior disciplinary record including private admonitions in 1985 
and 1997 and a public reprimand and three year probation in 2003,9 (2) 
Thompson’s dishonest conduct by making false statements on his certificates of 
compliance, (3) Thompson’s pattern of misconduct, (4) Thompson’s multiple 
offenses, (5) Thompson’s failure to cooperate with the ODC, (6) Thompson’s 
substantial experience in the practice of law, and (7) Thompson’s failure to file tax 
returns for 2002, 2003 and 2004.  The Board found four mitigating factors present.  
They include: (1) remorse, (2) recent cooperation10 with the ODC, (3) good 
character,11 and (4) Thompson’s mental disability. 
                                          
 
9 The Board assigned “considerably less weight” to the 1985 private admonition and only “some 
limited weight” to the 1997 private admonition because of their remoteness in time.   
10 While Thompson has recently cooperated with the ODC, he failed to respond to requests from 
June 2004 until he answered the Petition for Discipline in April 2006. 
11 Thompson has a lengthy history of representing clients who otherwise may not have legal 
representation. 
 7
Thompson argues that the mitigating factors in this case outweigh the 
aggravating factors.   Specifically, Thompson contends that the Board did not 
assign enough weight to his long history of pro bono service and his recent 
cooperation with the ODC.  We disagree.  The Board considered both of those 
factors and assigned them appropriate weight. 
Thompson also argues that the Board gave little weight to the diagnosis that 
Thompson is suffering from a major depressive disorder.  The Board chose to give 
it “some weight” as a personal or emotional problem under ABA Standard 9.32(c), 
but not as a mental disability as defined by ABA Standard 9.32(i).  To qualify as a 
mental disability under the definition of the ABA Standard there must be: 
(1) …medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical 
dependency or mental disability; (2) the chemical or mental disability 
caused the misconduct; (3) the respondent’s recovery from the 
chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a 
meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) 
the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that 
misconduct is unlikely.12 
 
The Board found that Thompson failed to satisfy the third and fourth prongs 
of the test.  The medical evidence supports this conclusion.  Thompson’s doctor 
could not determine how long Thompson had been suffering from depression.13  In 
addition, his doctor testified that Thompson had not yet demonstrated a meaningful 
                                          
 
12 In re Hull, 767 A.2d 197, 201 (Del. 2000). 
13 “[I]t is not clear yet whether the depression is also long-standing or of more recent origin.” 
 8
and sustained period of successful rehabilitation from his depression.  The record 
shows that the Board gave Thompson’s condition appropriate weight as a personal 
or emotional problem consistent with our decision in Hull.14 
Thompson also argues that the case law in Delaware supports his argument 
that he should be able to apply for reinstatement after only six months.  He relies 
on In re Landis15 and In re Mekler.16 
Thompson’s reliance on Landis is misplaced.  The key distinction between 
this case and Landis is that no client suffered harm in Landis.  Here, however, Ms. 
Martin suffered harm by Thompson’s failure to timely file memoranda in the 
Family Court.  Additionally, unlike Thompson, Landis was not on probation for 
misconduct.  While Thompson did admit to violating the rules, he failed to respond 
to ODC requests for almost two years during his probation.  Nor did he fully 
cooperate with the ODC as occurred in Landis. 
Mekler is also distinguishable from the facts of this case.  In Mekler, the 
attorney timely filed his tax returns but did not timely pay the amount due.17  In 
addition, the attorney represented a client in a proceeding against a former client in 
                                          
 
14 Hull, 767 A.2d at 201. 
15 850 A.2d 291 (Del. 2004). 
16 689 A.2d 1171 (Del. 1996). 
17 Mekler, 689 A.2d at 1173. 
 9
violation of DLRPC 1.9(a).18  Although he was forced to withdraw after the 
proceedings began, the harm inflicted on the client was less injurious than the 
damage to Ms. Martin.  Unlike Thompson, Mekler fully cooperated with the ODC 
during the investigation.19  
This Court’s role in “fashioning remedies for attorney misconduct must 
reflect that our primary responsibility is to the citizens of this State.”20  “The 
objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system [in Delaware] are to protect the public, 
to protect the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in the legal 
profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.”21  Thompson’s 
failure to file a tax return is a serious violation and generally results in a lengthy 
suspension.22  He failed to file memoranda to the Family Court on behalf of his 
client and his client suffered as a result.  Not only did Thompson fail to respond to 
various ODC requests for almost two years, but also he has yet to properly balance 
his escrow account which has contained unidentified funds since at least 2002.  All 
of these violations occurred while on probationary status for earlier violations of 
the rules.   
                                          
 
18 Id. at 1175. 
19 Id. at 1176 
20 Hull, 767 A.2d at 201. 
21  Bailey, 821 A.2d at 866.    
22 In re Shamers, 873 A.2d 1089, 1097 (Del. 2005) (citing In re Sanders, 498 A.2d 148 (Del. 
1985); In re Sandbach, 546 A.2d 345 (Del. 1998); In re Ayers, 802 A.2d 266 (Del. 2002); In re 
Autman, 798 A.2d 1042 (Del. 2002) (Table); In re Hiner, 796 A.2d 654 (Del. 2002) (Table)). 
 10
We have concluded that a three-year period of suspension is the appropriate 
for Thompson, subject to his ability to apply for reinstatement after two years if he 
satisfies certain conditions.  We also conclude that Thompson’s inability to correct 
his accounting deficiencies requires that a Receiver be appointed for the purpose of 
protecting his clients and former clients.  Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that 
John J. Thompson be disciplined as follows: 
(1) 
Thompson is suspended from engaging in the practice of law 
for a period of three years, commencing on the date of this decision subject 
to his right to apply for reinstatement after two years if the conditions in 
paragraph 9 are satisfied and Thompson has otherwise demonstrated his 
rehabilitation; 
(2) 
Thompson is reprimanded publicly. 
(3) 
During the suspension, Thompson shall conduct no act directly 
or indirectly constituting the practice of law, including the sharing or receipt 
of any legal fees.  Thompson 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 
 11
(4) 
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall file a petition in the 
Court of Chancery for the appointment of a receiver for the Respondent’s 
law practice. 
(5)    Thompson shall assist the Receiver in following the directives of 
Rules 21 and 23 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.   
(6) 
The Receiver shall make such arrangements as may be 
necessary to      protect the interests of any of Thompson’s clients.    
(7)   Thompson 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 ODC. 
(8)   Thompson shall fully cooperate with the ODC in its efforts to 
monitor his compliance with this order. 
(9) 
If Thompson has complied with all of the other terms and 
conditions of this Order, he may petition for reinstatement after two years, 
pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 22 of the Delaware Lawyers’ 
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.   
(10) This Opinion and Order shall be disseminated by the ODC in 
accordance with Rule 14 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary 
Procedure.