Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Strott

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

INTHE 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. 73, 2013
Board Case No, 2012-0282-B

GEORGE G, STROTT, JR.,

Respondent.

March 12, 2013
March 25, 2013

 

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and
RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER

 

In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Board on Professional
Responsibility (“Board”) recommends that this Court impose identical and
reciprocal discipline previously imposed by the disciplinary authority in Maryland,
against the Respondent, George G. Strott, Jr. Esquire. ‘The Office of Disciplinary
Counsel (“ODC”) does not object to the Board's recommendation, and the
Respondent consents to a concurrent imposition of the discipline that the Court of
Appeals of Maryland imposed upon him by its August 23, 2012 Order.

2. After considering the matter carefully, the Court finds the Board’s

recommendat

 

of suspension to be appropriate. We adopt the Board Report and
Recommendation and impose the identical sanction of suspension retroactively

against Mr. Strott, Because that suspension has now expired, we reinstate the
Respondent as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware, effective
immediately.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Board Report (attached) is,
hereby adopted, that identical and reciprocal retroactive discipline is imposed upon
George G. Strott, Jr, and that Mr. Strott is reinstated as a member of the Bar of the
Supreme Court of Delaware, effective immediately.

BY THE COURT:

(s/ Jack B. Jacobs

Justice
EFiled: Feb 20 2013 03:58PI
Filing 1D 49682712
Case Number 73,2013

Susan H, KirkeRyan
302 Brockton Road
Wilmington, DE 19803

February 20, 2013,

Mr. Steven D. Taylor, Court Administrator
‘Supreme Court of Delaware

820 N. French Street, 11% Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

 

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Enclosed please find the original of our Panel's recommendation in the
above-captioned matter. Please contact me ifthe Court should require anything
further.

Respectfully submitted,

foie th lock oy —

Susan H, Kirk-Ryan (L.D.# 1070)
Enclosure

cc: Joelle & Polesky, Esquire (with enclosures)
Dennis L. Schrader, Esquire (with enclosures, via First-class mail)
Ms. Carey C. McDaniel (with enclosures, via First-class mail)
Patricia 0. Vella, Esquire (with enclosures, via First-class mail)
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(OF THE.
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

In the Matter of a Member of the Bar (CONFIDENTIAL
‘Of the Supreme Court ofthe State of
Delaware ‘Board Case No, 2012-0282-B

GEORGE G. STROTT,3R,

‘Respondent.
BOARD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SANCTION

Pending before a panel ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility Board”) is a
ratier arising from an Order ofthe Court of Appeals of Maryland, entered on August 23,
2012, suspending George G. Strot, Jr, (“Respondent”) indefinitely from the practice of
law (the “August Order”), and a Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent, with
‘the Right to Apply or Reinstatement No Sooner than Thirty Days After the
(Commencement ofthe Suspension (the "Maryland Joint Petition”) fled by Respondet's
‘Maryland counsel and Bar Counsel ofthe Attorney Grievance Commision of Maryland
(Maryland Bar Counset”)

‘The Maryland discipline was th result of allegations by two ofthe Respondent's
former clients, The first case (the “2010 Case”) involved retention ofthe Respondent in
2010 and allegations thatthe Respondent failed to respond to communications from the
Client. The second case (the "2007 Case”) involved «2007 settlement negotiation on
‘behalf ofa client and disbursement of the settlement proceeds, The Maryland Joint
Petition noted thre prior reprimands ofthe Respondent—two in 1994 anda third in
2001. The Maryland Joint Petition also cited the following as mitigating factors: (i the
‘excellent reputation ofthe Respondent in his thirty-five years of practice; (i)
‘Respondent's reputation as being hones, credible and thoughtful; (ii) Respondent's
character as humanitarian; (v) the fact that Respondent reimbursed the client inthe
2007 Case and paid fees out of his personal funds; (v) the absence of any dishonest or
selfish motives alleged in either the 2010 Case or the 2007 Case; and (vi) Respondent's
‘operation with the Maryland Bar Counsel.
‘The Maryland suspension took effet sity days from date of the August Order.
‘The August Order provided that the Respondent shall not apply for reinstatement of his
right to practice law earlier than thirty days from the commencement of the suspension.

(On November 29, 2012, the Respondent (through Maryland counsel) filed «
Petition for Reinstatement in Maryland ("Maryland Petition for Reinstatement”). In the
‘Maryland Petition for Reinstatement, the Respondent set out the steps he had taken to
suspend his Maryland practice. The Maryland Bar Counsel, in its Response to Petition
for Reinstatement (the “Maryland Response to Petition for Reinstatement”), dated
December 10, 2012, di not oppose the reinstatement. The Court of Appeals of
‘Maryland granted the Respondent's Petition for Reinstatement in an Order dated
December 14, 2012 the “Maryland December Order”)

Maryland Bar Counsel notified the Delaware Office of Disciptinary Counsel
(CODC”) of the August Order of indefinite suspension on October 24, 2012.

(On November 1, 2012, Karen L, Valihura, Esq., Chair of the Board on
Professional Responsibility in Delaware, issued a Notice and Onder (the “Delaware
[Notice and Order”), directing the Respondent to notify the Board within 30 days of “any
‘claim... predicated on the grounds set forth in paragraph (4) of Rule 18 of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure that the imposition ofthe identical discipline in this State would
‘be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.”

Dennis L. Schrader, Esq, filed a Response to Notice and Order, dated November
26,2012 (the “Delaware Response”), on behulf ofthe Respondent, The Delaware
Response noted that Respondent was admitted tothe Delaware Bar in 1985 (and o the
‘Maryland Bar in 1975). The Delaware Response also noted that the Respondent had
closed both his Maryland and Delaware offices on or before October 22, 2012. In the
Delaware Response, the Respondent noted that he “consents tothe imposition of the
‘identical discipline in the State of Delaware,” and “does not object tothe concurrent
‘identical discipline imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland by its Order on August
23,2012”

Joelle E. Polesky, Esq, on behalf of ODC, ina lewer dated November 28, 2012
(the “November ODC Letter”), noted that ODC does not oppose the Respondent's
‘consent tothe imposition of identical discipline in this reciprocal discipline matter.
(On December 14,2012, Steven D. Taylor assigned a Board Panel composed of
‘Susan H. Kirk-Ryan, Esq. (Chair), D. Benjamin Snyder, Esquire, and Ms, Carey C.
‘McDaniel for te filing of a recommendation to the Delaware Supreme Court pursuant
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 18(d). Mr. Taylor forwarded
relevant documents for the Panel's consideration, and noted that ODC and counsel forthe
Respondent did not request a hearing before the Panel

By a January 4, 2013, letter, Ms, Patricia O. Vella, Esq. was assigned tothe panel
‘asa substitute for Lewis H. Lazarus, Esq, who had been assigned to substitute for Mr.

Snyder.
‘The Panel consisting of Ms. Kirk-Ryan, Ms. Carey and Ms. Vella considered the

documents submitted, including

(1) a letter from Joelle E. Polesky, Esq. to Steven D. Taylor, Administrative
‘Assistant to the Board on Professional Responsibly, dated October 31,2012,
inciuding the August Order and the Maryland Joint Peiton as stachments,

(2) the Delaware Notice and Order,

(G) a letter from Erin A. Risch, Esq., to Ms, Polesky, Ms. Valiura and Mr.
‘Taylor, dated November 8, 2012, advising that while she represented the
Respondent in Maryland, she cannot represent him in Delaware, where she is
not admitted to the Bar,

(4) alter fom Dennis L Schrader, Esq to Mt. Taylor, dated November 26,
2012, enciosing his enty of appearance in Delaware on bealf of the
Respondent, as well asthe Delaware Response,

(8) the November ODC Leter,

(6 alec fom Ma. Risch to Ms. Bessie M. Decker, Crk ofthe Court of
Appeals of Maryland, dated November 29, 2012, enclosing the Maryland
Peation for Reinstatement

(7 alee from Mr, Schrader to Mr, Taylor, dated December 10,2012, enclosing
the Maryland Response o Petition for Restatement and

(®) alter from Mr. Schrader to Mr. Taylor, dated December 18,2012, enclosing
the December Order.
‘Recommendation of the Panel
Pursuant to Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rall 18(d) the
‘Board “shall recommend tothe Court that it impose the identical discipline... unless
‘counselor the lawyer demonstrates hat:

(1) the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity tobe heard as to constitute
eprivation of due process;

(2) there was such infty of proof establishing the misconduct a to give rise to the
clear conviction thatthe Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept a final
the conclusion on the subject;

(G) the imposition ofthe sume discipline by the Court would result in grave injustice;

(0 Seer ee srs ty ite gen
ata
Upon consideration of the documents submitted in this case, including the
Positions of the Respondent, ODC and Maryland Bar Counsel, itis the Panels
ves tet te ci pas Da ey
scoured peep ste tee
nn taeiuncosnntan tence

Respect submited,
alials Mh.
Date 'F. Kiri Ryan, Eq. Panel Chair