Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Wilks

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

INTHE MATTER OF A MEMBER §
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME § No. 311, 2014

COURT OF THE STATE OF §

DELAWARE: §
§ Board Case No. 2012-0150-B

DAVID E. WILKS, §

§

Respondent. §

‘Submitted: June 23, 2014
Decided: June 25, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.

ORDER

This 25th day of June 2014, it appears to the Court that the Board on

Professional Responsibility has filed a Report in this matter as required by Rule

94) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Neither the Office

of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) nor the Respondent has filed any objections to the

Board’s Report. The Court has reviewed the matter under Rule 9(e) of the

Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and approves the Board’s

Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the factual findings contained

in the Report filed by the Board on Professional Responsibility on June 12, 2014

(copy attached) are APPROVED. The recommendation of a public reprimand is

ADOPTED with the following conditions:
(Fora period of one year beginning July 1, 2014, the Respondent shall
‘meet regularly with a practice monitor assigned by the Professional Guidance

Committee of the Delaware State Bar Association.

 

‘The Respondent shall comply with any terms and conditions
established by the practice monitor during the one-year monitoring period. The
practice monitor shall file a written report with the ODC each quarter reflecting the
Respondent's compliance with the practice monitor’s conditions. Failure to
comply with the practice monitor’s conditions may subject the Respondent to
further disciplinary proceedings.

‘The ODC is directed to file within ten days of the date of this Order

 

the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the Respondent is directed to

 

BY THE COURT:
(G1 Le0 E. String, Jr.

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

In the Matter of a )
Member of the Bar of the ) CONFIDENTIAL

‘Supreme Court of Delaware: )
) Board Case No. 2012.0150-8,

DAVID E. WILKS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

REPORT OF THE BOARD ON
PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE

This is the report on proceedings instituted by the Petition for Discipline (the
“Petition”) filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") on February 5, 2014. The
ODC seeks sanctions against David E. Wilks ("Respondent"), A hearing was held on
March 27, 2014 in the Supreme Court at 55 The Green in Dover, Delaware ("the
Hearing’). The members of the panel for the Board were Deirdre McCartney, Esquire,
Deborah Armistead, and D. Benjamin Snyder, Esquire as Chair (the “Panel"). Jennifer-
Kate Aaronson, Esquire represented the ODC. Respondent was represented by
Charles Slanina, Esquire.

|. The Violations Alleged Anainst Respondent

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware in 1989.

(SF 11)." Atal

 

imes covered by the Petition, Respondent was engaged in the private
Practice of law. (SF 2). The Petition sets forth four counts alleging violations of four

rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.1 (competent representation), Rule 1.3 (dligence

+The facts set forth herein taken trom Stipulation of Fact submited by the ODC and Respondent a
ted as SFL

 

1
land promptness), Rule 1.4 (keeping client reasonably informed), and Rule 8.4(c)
(dishonest conduct)? Respondent admits these four violations. (SF WI1-4).
N. Facts,

‘The alleged violations arise out of Respondent's representation of Craig and
Valerie Sheets. Respondent represented the Sheets in connection with personal injury
and property damage claims as a result of a noxious odor in their home caused by an
improper application of a mold and mildew retardant by Waterseal, Inc. to the home's
basement on January 11, 2006. (SF 3). The Sheets moved out of their home and
stayed at a nearby hotel for various times over several months, and incurred cleaning,
disposal and replacement charges for rugs, furniture, and various personal items
damaged by the contamination. (SF {f4). Extensive remedial measures paid for by
Waterseat’s i

918).

  

surance cartier failed to completely alleviate the Sheets’ complaints. (SF

‘On May 11, 2008, the Sheets retained Respondent to represent them with
respect to their potential claims. (SF 4). The Sheets were referred to Respondent
through a mutual friend. (Tr. at p. 40; 8-11).> Respondent concluded that the Sheets
did not have a viable personal injury claim, and that the only valid claim they had was
{for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. (SF 7). Respondent, however,
never advised the Sheets of this fact, and never filed suit. (SF {f6). Respondent
testified at the Hearing that the reason he avoided informing the Sheets of the status of
their case is that, through the course of the representation, he developed a personal
relationship with Mr. Sheets, and he did not want to burden the Sheets with bad news

¥ References to Rules are tothe Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct,
> Citations to Tr. _ are tothe transcript ofthe Hearing

2
during an already dificuit time in their life. (Tr. at pp. 47-49). The statute of limitations
{for a personal injury action expired on January 11, 2008. (SF Yf)

‘On April 16, 2008, Mr. Sheets emailed Respondent asking if his claims had been
barred by an applicable statute of limitations. (SF 9). Respondent told Mr. Sheets that
he had an agreement toling all statute of limitations with defense counsel. (SF {110).
There was no such tolling agreement. (SF f111).

In a series of emails from February 2008 to May 2008, Mr. Sheets requested
Respondent file a lawsuit against Waterseal. (SF (112). Respondent never filed suit.
(SF 913). From January 25, 2009 to August 30, 2010, Mr. Sheets made at least 50
requests by email to meet with Respondent and/or obtain a copy of his fle. (SF 1114)
Respondent made excuse after excuse to avoid meeting with Respondent to discuss
the status of his case,

In February 2009, more than three years after the contamination, Respondent
‘met with Mr, Sheets to review a draft complaint. (SF 915). Beginning in March 2009,
Mr, Sheets made numerous inquiries via email as to whether the complaint had been
filed, (SF 918). No complaint was ever filed

On February 25, 2011, Mr. Sheets retained new legal counsel who filed a legal
malpractice suit in Superior Court against Respondent. (SF 1119). The malpractice case
settled at mediation on or about August 17, 2011, and the Sheets received a substantial

settlement.
Ml, Findings of the Board

Allegations of professional misconduct must be established by the ODC by clear
‘and convincing evidence.“ As noted above, Respondent admits the four violations:
alleged in the Petiton. ‘The Panel finds that there i clear and convincing evidence to
‘support the violations.

Rule 1.1 provides that “a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a
client . . . [which] requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation." The Panel finds that Respondent violated
this rule by failing to prosecute the Sheets’ claims, failing to file a complaint, and failing
to secure a tolling agreement to preserve the statute of limitations with respect to the
Shoots’ claims

Rule 1.3 provides that “a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diigence and
prompiness in representing a client” The Panel nds that Respondent violated this rule
by faling to digently pursue the Sheets’ claims and by failing to timely file a complaint.

Rule 1.4(a)(3) provides that “[a] lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter." In addition, Rule 1.4(a)(4) provides that “[a] lawyer shall
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” The Panel finds that
Respondent violated these rules by failing to provide information, including the status of
negotiations with defense counsel, and the client's own case file, to Mr. Sheets despite
‘numerous and repeated requests.

Rule 8.4(c) provides that “fal lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The Panel finds that Respondent
Violated this rule by falsely representing to Mr. Sheets that a complaint had been filed,

* Delaware Lawyers’ Rule of Disciplinary Procedure "DLRFOP") 15(c),
4
that there was a tolling agreement, and that negotiations with defense counsel were
ongoing.
WV, Sanctions
‘The Panel is guided and bound by the precedents of the Delaware Supreme
Court and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ("ABA Standard or ABA
Standards"). The objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system are "to protect the public,
{o protect the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in the legal profession,
and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. In determining the appropriate
‘sanction for lawyer misconduct, the Delaware Supreme Court follows the ABA
Standards
‘The ABA framework consists of four key factors to be
considered by the Court: (a) the ethical duty violated; (b) the
lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused
by the lawyer's misconduct; and, () aggravating and
mitigating factors.°
41. The Ethical Duties Violated
Based on his own admissions, and the findings of the Panel, Respondent

 

Violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(8) and (4), and 8.4(c). Through these violations,
Respondent breached duties owed his clients by falling to act with the requisite
competence, diligence, responsiveness, and candor.”
2, The Lawyer's Mental State
Respondent acted with a knowing mental state. He was consciously aware of
the inaccuracy of his representations to his clients regarding the status of matters in the

case,

5 in re Baley, 821 A2d 851, 866 (Del. 2003),
* in ro Lasson, 672 A.2d 988, 098 (Dol. 1096).
» ABA Standard 40,
3. Actual or Potential Injury
The Panel finds that there was actual injury as a result of the Sheets’ legitimate
claim for out-of-pocket expenses being barred by the running of the applicable statute of
limitations.
4. Agaravating and Mi Circumsta
After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances may be considered.’ Aggravating or mitigating circumstances are any
considerations of factors that may justify increasing or decreasing, respectively, the
degree of discipline to be imposed.®
The Panel finds that there are two aggravating factors as set forth in ABA
Standard 9.22: (1) substantial experience in the practice of law; and (2) dishonest or
selfish motive." Respondent has been a member of the Delaware Bar for
approximately 25 years. (Tr. at p. 47; 1-2). And, while Respondent contends that the
‘motivation for his dishonesty was to avoid unnecessarily burdening his clients, his
Conduct was nonetheless inherently dishonest, and at least partially motivated by self-
interest to conceal his neglect of their legal claims."
With regard to mitigating factors, the Panel finds that there are four mitigating
factors as set forth in ABA Standard 9.92: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (2)
full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings,

(8) character or reputation, and (4) remorse.

5 Ine Batley, 82% A.26 at 866.

{ABA Siandard 821; ABA Standard 9:31,

ABA Standard 9.22(c)

'" Respondent argues that he Is ented tothe benefit ofa mitigating factor forthe lack ofa dishonest or
sefish motive, (Tr. at p. 76). The Panel cisagrees for these reasons.

6
Respondent has no prior disciplinary record. There is no evidence of a pattern of
misconduct or multiple offenses. Respondent's character and reputation suggest that
the conduct at issue is uncharacteristic of him. Respondent also expressed sincere
remorse for his misconduct, has reimbursed the Sheets' the legal fees they paid for his
services, and has cooperated with the ODC. We find that these mitigating factors,
including most significantly the absence of a pattern of misconduct or multiple offenses,
‘outweigh the aggravating factors.

V. Recommended Discipline

The Panet's recommendation of an appropriate sanction assists the Court, but it
is not binding.'* The Court "has wide latitude in determining the form of discipline, and
Ii) wil review the recommended sanction to ensure that it is appropriate, fair and
consistent with ... prior disciplinary decisions."

The ODC and Respondent both argue that the appropriate sanction in this case
is public reprimand. Respondent urges the application of ABA Standard 5.13, which
Provides that the presumptive sanction is reprimand where “a lawyer knowingly
‘engages in other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mistepresentation
‘and that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fines to practice law." However, that

‘standard applies to violations of duties owed to the public, such as abiding by the law,

 

28 distinct from duties owed to one’s client. With regard to the duty of honesty owed to
@ client, under ABA Standard 4.22, suspension is generally the appropriate sanction

“when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes injury or potential injury to the

821 Ad at 866.

 
client“ The case at hand involves dishonesty and injury to a client. Thus, ABA
Standard 4.22 appears to be the more applicable standard, As a result, the

presumptive sanction appears to be suspension, not public reprimand. In any event,

 

after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, including most significantly the
lack of muttiple offenses or a pattern of similar conduct, the Panel agrees with the ODC
‘and Respondent that suspension is not the appropriate final sanction. Rather, a public
‘eprimand and a two-year probation with conditions will better serve the goals of lawyer
discipline.

Here, the Panel concludes that Respondent failed to competently and diligently
protect his clients’ interests by failing to file suit prior to the applicable statute of
limitations, and knowingly deceived his clients regarding the status of the matter in an
‘effort to avoid having a dificult conversation regarding the merits and status of their
claims. Respondent allowed the relationship that developed between him and his client
to interfere with his professional duties. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why the
‘Sheets did not seek new counsel sooner in light of Respondent's blatant obfuscation,
‘except that the personal relationship they developed with Respondent made it difficult to
do $0. Thus, while Respondent's conduct is egregious and dishonest, the evidence
‘suggests that it Is Isolated to one matter involving one client. Accordingly, the Panel
recommends a public reprimand and a two-year probation with conditions.

‘The case law supports this conclusion. The Panel relies on the following case

law for its decision:

% Compare ABA Standard 4.5 (stating “Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently
{ails te provide a chent with accurate or complete information, and causes injury or potential injury to the
client’) (emphasis added)

 
1) In re Hess."* The attorney admitted to improperly transferring $8,000
in client funds to his operating account, failing to use the $8,000 to pay
the client's medical bills, falling to communicate with his client,
committing books and records violations, filing false certificates of
compliance, and failing to pay his income taxes. He admitted
Violations of Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4(a) (keeping client informed),
Rules 1.15(a), (b) and (d) (handling client property), Rule 8.4(c)
(dishonesty), and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice). However, mitigating factors included no prior disciplinary
record, cooperation with ODC, efforts to rectify the misconduct, and
recognition of the wrongfulness of the conduct through admissions to
the allegations, The sanction imposed was a public reprimand and two
years of probation, with conditions,

2) In re Gielata,"® The attorney pled guilty to misdemeanor theft in
connection with @ conspiracy to defraud a third party in the amount of
$2,970. He accepted probation before judgment, thereby avoiding a
criminal conviction, and made full restitution to the third party. The
Panel found that he knowingly committed a criminal act that reflects,
adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness in violation of Rule
8.4(b), which generally requires suspension. However, the panel
adopted the position of the ODC, which argued that the mitigating
circumstances, including absence of a prior disciplinary record,

% 672.A24 988 (De, 1986.
* 2007 WL 2422148 (Del. 2007)
inexperience in the practice of law, other penaities and sanctions, and
remorse and disclosure, warranted only a public reprimand, which
‘sanction was approved by the Court

3) In re Schaeffer."” The respondent intentionally made a false report of
a hostage situation to the police, causing seven to ten heavily armed
officers to respond to the scene, and handcuff and detain another
attorney. The panel found that the false report also caused a risk of

serious harm to third parties. Although he was not charged with a

 

crime, the panel dete that the attorney's misconduct constituted
‘criminal act in violation of Rule 8.4(b). However, the panel
concluded that, even assuming the presumptive sentence was
‘Suspension, the mitigating factors justified reducing the sanction to a
Public reprimand. The Court accepted the panel's recommendation,

4) In re Doelze."* The respondent falsely notarized a document prior to
his client appearing before him and signing the document. The
respondent had been admonished previously for similar misconduct.
Mitigating factors included that respondent's conduct did not reflect a
selfish motive, he fully cooperated with the ODC, and demonstrated
remorse. The sanction imposed was a public reprimand.

‘The case is also distinguishable from other cases involving

 

ispensions for
neglect of client affairs and false statements to clients because the case at hand

© 2012 Wt 1859687 (Del, 2012).
"2002 WL 202439 (Del. 2002).

10
involves a single isolated matter, rather than a fixed patter involving multiple clients
and matters:

1) In ro Carmine."* The attorney was charged with misconduct in
representing four separate clients. The respondent was found to have
repeatedly neglect clients’ legal affairs, including, but not limited to,
failing to keep clients informed as to the status of their cases, failing to
perfect an appeal, falling to pursue negotiations or file suit, and failing
to respond to a lawful demand for information by the ODC. The
attorney also had two prior disciplinary actions against him. The Court
ordered a two-year suspension.

2) Ine Sullivan The attorney was found guilty of misconduct involving

false statements to client and super

 

ising attorney, lack of diigence,
and failure to provide competent representation. This pattem of
misconduct involved 11 clients. The attomey also had three prior
private sanctions for similar misconduct. The Court ordered a 18-
‘month suspension.

3) Inre McCann. The attorney missed filing deadlines, failed to respond
to court orders, flled to notify a client that appeal had been dismissed
until several weeks had passed, revised @ client's will to include a ten

percent bequ

 

3 to himself, identified himself as a nephew in the will,
submitted falsified evidence to tribunal, and failed to file dues collection

cases. The misconduct involved three separate matters over the

 

559 A.26 248 (Del. 1969),
® 727 424832 (Oe, 1900).
* 669 A 24 49 (Del. 1995),
course of three years, and the attomiey had been sanctioned twice
before. A suspension of 18 months was imposed.

Based upon the foregoing, the Panel recommends a public reprimand and
probation for two years. As conditions of probation, Respondent is to have a practice
monitor, satisfactory to the ODC, who shall meet with him regularly and report any
problems with personal or client matters, and Respondent is to reimburse the ODC for
the costs of prosecuting this matter. We believe these sanctions satisfy the stated
objections of the lawyer discipline system “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”?

Conclusion and Signature Pages Follow

® In re Meter, 669 A.24 655, 668 (Del. 1885).
2
CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we recommend that the sanctions of public
reprimand and two years’ probation with conditions be imposed,

Respectfully submitted,
Dates: 0/2/14
min Snyder 10 #4058)
Deire MeCariney (D #4200)

Deborah |. Armistead

3
 

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, we recommend that the sanctions of public
‘reprimand and two years’ probation with conditions be imposed,
Respectully submited,

1D Borjarnin Snyder (D #4038)

pide The Catpog

Deirdre McCartney (1D #4280)

Daboraf |. Armistead