Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Nixon

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Inthe Matter ofa Member of the §
Bar of the Supreme Court of §
Delaware §
§

TYLER PATRICK NIXON, §
Respondent §

No. 188, 2012

‘Submitted: May 25, 2012
Decided: July 25, 2012

Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 25" day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding regarding Tyler Patrick

 

mn’s (“Respondent's”) admissions of violation relating to a Petition for
Discipline. On February 4, 2011, Respondent was suspended on an interim basis,

from the practice of law in Delaware. A Panel of the Board on Professional

 

Responsibility (the “Panel”) filed a Report and Recommendation on Sanctions (the
“Report”), dated April 9, 2012. The Panel made findings of fact and recommended
a two-year suspension with conditions.

(2) The Court has carefully reviewed this matter. We conclude that the
Panel’s findings and recommendation of a two-year suspension are appropriate.

‘As to the conditions of reinstatement, it appears those recommendations are
premature. Any determination as to the conditions of Respondent's reinstatement
should be considered in conjunction with Respondent's petition for reinstatement.!
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report filed by the Board
on Professional Responsibility on April 9, 2012 (copy attached), is hereby
APPROVED with the exception of the recommendation on conditions of
reinstatement. The Respondent is SUSPENDED as a member of the Bar of the
State of Delaware. ‘The period of suspension shall be for two years retroactive to
February 4, 2011, and shall continue until Respondent petitions this Court for

reinstatement and demonstrates his fitness to practice law in the State of Delaware.

BY THE COURT:

 

(si Henry duPont,
Justice

* See IMO Member of the Bar: Rodriguez, 2002 WL 432019, at *1 (Del. Mar. 14, 2002); IMO
‘Member of the Bar: Howard, 765 A.2d 39, 4S (Del. 2000).

2
 

April 9, 2012

‘Richmond Williams, Esquire
1313 North Market Street
‘Wilmington, DE 19894

‘Stephen D. Taylor, Esq.
‘Carvel State Office Building
820N. French Street, 11" floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

re: Inte Nixon: Board Case No. 2011-0007-B
Report and Recommendation on Sanction

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Enclosed for fing with The Court, please find the original Report and
Recommendation on Sanctions issued by the Boar on Profesional Responsibility today.

certify that copies ofthe Report are being hand delivered by Parcels and emailed
this day

 

Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esquire
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
820 N. French Street, 1" Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Email: patricia schwartz@state.de-us

= and -

‘Tyler Patrick Nixon, Esquire
905 North Van Buren Steet
‘Wilmington, DE 19806

Email: tylemixon@aol.com

Sincerely,

\G$
Richmond L. Williams, Esq.
Panel Chair

Board of Professional Responsibility

RLWij

Encl

ce: Tyler Nixon, Esq, wlenl.
Patricia Schivart, Esq, wen
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARB

INTHEMATTEROF AMEMBER =) CONFIDENTIAL
OF THE BAR OF THE )
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE —)_—_Board Case No. 2011 -0007B
TYLER PATRICK NIXON, )
RESPONDENT )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SANCTIONS:
A panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility consisting of Richmond L. Williams,
Esquire, Chair; Daniel F. Wolcott, J, Esquire; and Carey C. MeDaniel conducted a Sanctions
Haring on February 9, 2012, regarding Tyler Patrick Nixon’s (“Respondent”) admissions of
violation relating tothe Petition for Discipline filed against Respondent in this matter. The
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) was represented by Patricia Barley Schwartz.
Respondent appeared Pro Se. This is the Pane!’s Report and Recommendation following the
Sanetions Hearing.

Findings
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 2004, (Petition and Answer, Para 1).

‘On January 10, 2011, Respondent was charged with 6 felonies and a misdemeanor relating 10
illicit drugs and firearms found during the search of his home. (Petition and Answer, Para 3),

‘On February 4, 2011, the Court suspended Respondent on an interim basis asa result ofthe
sulle felony charges against him. (Petition and Answer, Para 2).

‘On August 4, 2011 Respondent pled guilty to 3 misdemeanor counts: wo for possession of
controlled substances and one for drug paraphernalia, (Petition and Answer, Para 4).

‘Respondent was incarcerated for 60 days. (Superior Court Sentence Order, ODC Exhibit 2),
Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility
tn re Nixon, April 9, 2012
‘The Petition for Discipline was filed January 4, 2012. On January 27, 2012, with consent of
‘ODC and approval ofthe Board, Respondent Answered the Petition by admitting the alleged
violations.

 

‘At the hearing, Corporal Robert Cassidy ofthe Delaware State Police Troop 2 Drug Unit
testified for ODC. He testified about the execution ofa search warrant at Respondent's home
and the circumstances leading to Respondent's arrest. On cross-cxamination he admitted that the
circumstances he observed were not consistent with the sale of controlled substances. (Cassidy,
11, 21-23, 29-35).

‘ODC called Respondent as its other witness and asked him to confirm the factual circumstances,
connected with the charges in question, including his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges.
(Nixon, 116). In addition, he testified that he now abstains and will continue to abstain from the
use of controlled substances (Nixon, 107) and that the substances were for personal use, not sale
or distribution. (Nixon, 112). He testified about the significant personal consequences resulting
from his arrest and suspension from the practice of law, including his incarceration, loss of
livelihood and likely loss of his home. (Nixon, 112).

Respondent called a number of witnesses who described his conduct asa lawyer and a ctize
‘He was described as a diligent, caring lawyer who was honest and ethical and went the extra yard
for his client. He was not afraid to stand up for people and if he thought the cause was just often
‘took cases even though he knew he wouldn’t get paid for them Outside of his practice of law,
Ihe was known as a person who was politically active and a strong advocate for open government.
(See, Williams, 43-45; Matthews, 52-57; Jenson, 60-61; Kushner, 73-77; Adelman 81+

Murphy, 85-87; Fulcher, 95-97; Marshall 138-141),

    

‘After careful review ofthe evidence, including the testimony of Corporal Cassidy and the
Respondent, we conclude thatthe controlled substances were for Respondent's personal
‘consumption and not for distribution or sale in spite of Respondent's possession of large
‘quantities of marijuana and MDMA (Ecstasy). Stated another way, we find that ODC has not
proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was involved in selling or distributing
controlled substances. We also conclude that no individual, other than Respondent, was harmed
5a result of his illegal conduct.

‘The Pane!’s role in a sanctions case is to recommend to the Court the sanctions it considers
appropriate in light of the evidence it has heard. The Court will consider the Panel’s
‘recommendations, but such recommendations are not binding upon the Court.

* References arto the transcript of the Leung conducted on February 9, 2012 and sal be presatd with be name
ofthe witness and transcript page numbers.
Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility,
In re Nixon, Apri 9, 2012

functions Detcinth

‘The Supreme Court explains its role and the process it follows in determining sanctions as
follows:

‘This Court has exclusive authority and wide latitude in disciplining the members
of our Bar. Thus while the Board’s recommendations of the spproprate sanction
to be imposed are helpful, they are not binding on this Court. In formulating an

‘appropriate sanction, this Court looks to the framework set forth in the ABA.
Standards for imposing Lawyer Sanctions (*ABA Standards") and to relevant
precedent.

 

‘In making an initial determination of an appropriate sanction, the Court begins by
‘examining throe key factors: (a) the ethical duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental
stato; and (c) the extent ofthe actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
‘misconduct. After weighing these three factors and making an initial
determination of an appropriate sanction, the Court then will Jook at the
‘aggravating and mitigating circumstances ofthe particular case to determine ifthe
discipline should be increased or decreased. (Footnotes omitted).

Inre Howard, 765 A.24 39, at 42 (Del, 2000).
Duties Violated
Count 1.

Rule 8.4(6) provides that tis misconduet for a lawyer to “commit a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

Respondent has admitted this charge of misconduct and, based upon the evidence in the record,
‘we find that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) as alleged and admitted. Respondent's conviction
of the misdemeanor charges of Possession of Ecstasy, Marijuana and Drug Paraphernalia re
criminal acts in violation of Rule 8.4(b).

Count 2.

Rule 8.4(d) provides that i is misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice.”

Respondent has admitted this charge of misconduct and, based upon the evidence in the record,
wwe find that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(4) as alleged and admitted. Respondent's conviction
‘on the criminal charges of possession of ecstasy, possession of marijuana and possession of drug
paraphemalia, establishes that Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(@).
Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility
In re Nixon, April 9, 2012

‘Section $ of the ABA Standards provides guidance on how to determine the presumptive
‘sanctions for violations that result from a lawyer committing criminal acts. It appears 10
‘consolidate the nature of the duties violated, state of mind and harm into a unified set of criteria.

5.1 Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity

‘upon application ofthe factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are
‘generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's. fitness asa lawyer...

 

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(@) _alewyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of
‘hich includes intentional interference with the administration of justice... or the sale,
distribution or importation of controlled substances...

5.12 _ Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal
‘conduct which does not contain the elements listed in 5.1) and that seriously adversely
reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice,

 

 

5.13. Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any
‘other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that
adversely reflects on the lawyer's finess to practice law.

5.14 _Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other conduct
‘that reflects adversely on the lawyer’ fitness to practice law.

“The primary issue regarding the initial determination of sanction (presumptive sanction called
for in the ABA Standards is whether the appropiate sanction is disbarment (undet ABA
Standard 5.11) or suspension (under ABA Standard 5.12). Neither ODC nor Respondent asked
sto consider lesser sanctions.

‘ODC argues that Respondent's admitted conduct constituted “felonious behavior” even if he
‘was not convicted of felony, and, therefore, the presumptive penalty is disbarment. ODC
argues thatthe rule followed by the Cour is that attomeys engaging in any type of felonious
‘conduct are always subject to disbarment. (ODC, 165-180)

Respondent disagrees that his conduct was “felonious”, argues that conduct that could result in a
conviction for a felony (“felonious conduct”) does not automatically result in disbarment (but the
‘Court should look to whether the underlying conduct meets the criteria of 5.11, notits
classification in the erizinal law system adopted by the legislature) and suggests thatthe Court
should impose a suspension in his case. He argues that the Howard case is most similar to his,
since it involved violation of the law without allegation of moral turpitude, dishonesty, theft,
 

‘Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility

Inre Nixon, April 9, 2012

violence ot actual harm to another person (criteria forthe application of Standard 5.11) and,
therefore, suspension, not disbarment is appropriate. (Nixon 187-194).

‘While the ultimate determination ofthe sanction is exclusively he responsibility of the Supreme
Cour, it is the obligation of the Board to recommend what it believes isthe appropriate sanction,
under the circumstances. ‘Thus, we address the positions offered by the partes.

We have careflly reviewed the decisions cited by the parties end find that tis tru that in the
decisions cited by ODC, when attomeys were convicted of felonies, they were disbarred.
However, we find that the Court didnot explicitly adopt tis as a rule. We believe that when the
violation ofthe Rules relates to a criminal act, the Court looks a the nature ofthe conduct
underlying the crime and applies Guideline 5.1 ofthe ABA Standards. Ifthe underlying conduct
‘meets the test of 5.11 it finds disbarment is appropriate. If it finds thatthe criteria of$.11 are
‘not met, ut the miscondue s stil a serious criminal act, Section 5.12 applies and a suspension
is the presumptive penalty.

ODC has cited toa series of cases that it argues establish that if’ party engages in “felonious
conduct”, whether convicted of that crime or not, disbarment is warranted, We find most ofthe
cases unhelpful and inapposte as all but two involve felony convictions in which the lawyer's
“undeelying behavior clearly met the criteria for disbarment under 5.11. One matter in re Ema,
971 A.2d 110 (Del. 2008), involved misdemeanor convictions and «plea to felonies that would
‘be dismissed if probation were successfully completed. However, as was pointed out by
Respondent, the underlying conduct involved violence and a blatant disregard for specific court
‘orders including a protection from abuse order and resulted in harm to individuals (Enna's
children and former wife) (Nixon, 187-188). The other matter, Howard, involved a lawyer
changed with several felony drug charges and who pled to misdemeanor counts?

‘We reviewed the Court's decisions in Melvin, 807 A.2d 550 (Del. 2002) and In Re Amberly, 996
A.24 793 (Table), 2010 WL 2184031, both of which resulted in suspensions. Melvin was
charged with felony and misdemeanor charges including tampering with evidence, hindering
prosecution and criminal contempt after he ignored a PFA order and concealed or destroyed his
wife's journal thet might have aided in lodging criminal charges against him. He pled to two
‘misdemeanor counts. His sanction was an 18-month suspension, retroactive to the date of his
interim suspension. Amberly was charged with making a false statement to a tribunel and
received a 6-month suspension.

* We note that he Court adopted the recommendation of disbarment, but nt necesstsily the atiooae sed bythe
Panel in making its recommendation. I Enna, the Pane id aot discuss the applicability of ABA Standard 5.11,

> ‘The Supreme Courts opinion in Howard indicates that be pled guilty to two misdemexnors one of which wat

(Criminal Solicitation. The opinion alo indiates be was arrested for dro relted felonies. We assure that ODC
‘would have been able to prove by clear and convincing evidence hat Howard consid felonies.

5
Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility
In re Nixon, April 9, 2012

We also reviewed Commentary to the ABA Standards for assistance in determining whether
Standard 5.11 or 5.12 applied. In referring to 5.11 the Commentary states:

‘A lawyer who engages in any of the illegal acts listed above has violated one of the most
basic professional obligations to the public, the pledge to maintain personal honesty and
integrity, This duty to the public is breached regardless of whether a criminal charge has
‘boon brought against the lawyer: ...
In imposing final discipline in such cases, most courts impose disberment on lawyers
‘who are convicted of serious felonies.
ABA Standards, at 36. Thus, ODC appears to be correct in pointing to the underlying conduct as
a basis for determination ofthe applicability of 5.11 or 5.12. On the other hand, the
‘Commentary does not appear to support ODC’s assertion that conviction of a felony, per se, is
‘grounds for disbarment. According to the Commentary disbarment is appropriate for those who
are “convicted of serious felonies.” Jd. The Commentary for 5.12 also supports this conclusion.

Lawyers who engage in criminal conduct other then that described above in Standard
5.11 should be suspended in cases where their conduct seriously adversely teflects on
their fitness to practice. As inthe case of disbarment, a suspension can be imposed even,
‘where no eriminal charges have been filed against the lawyer. Not every lawyer who
comamits a criminal act should be suspended, however. As pointed out in the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct:

Although a lawyer is personally answerable tothe entire criminal law, a lawyer
should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those
ccharacteristies relevant to law practice, Offenses involving violence, dishonesty
orbreach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in
that category. A pattem of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance
when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

‘The most common cases involved lawyers who commit felonies other than those listed
above, such as the possession of narcotics or sexual assault.

ABA Standards, at 37. Thus, it appears that the drafters of the ABA Standards not only intended
that the Court consider the underlying conduct, but that it also consider whether the conduct, if
felonious, was “serious” and is of the type of conduct falling within the provisions of $.11 before
disbarment is imposed. It specificaly distinguished criminal conduet such as possession of
narcotics (even if constituting a felony) from the type of conduct that falls within 5.11
Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Resporsibility
In re Nixon, April 9, 2012,

In the present case, Respondent has admitted facts that could constitute felony.‘ However, he
pled to, and was convicted of, misdemeanor charges. When we look to the underlying conduct
‘as suggested by the Commentary, the record is absolutely clear that, except forthe quantity of
‘marijuana and MDMA, there was no evidence that Respondent was in the drug business, He did
‘not have large amounts of cash in the premises, he did not have the supplies that would be used
to break the drugs down into smaller quantities for resale and the MDMA in his possession was
not consistent with that intended for resale. We note thatthe aresting officer agreed that what
he observed when executing the search warrant was not consistent with a person selling drugs,
(Cassidy, 29-35).

Unlike in Melvin and Amberly, there is no evidence inthe record against Respondent of disregard
forthe sanctity of the justice system or dishonesty. Unlike Enna, thece is no evidence in the
‘record aginst Respondent of violence or threatening and no harm to any individual, except
himself,

‘Afler careful review of the evidence on the record, , we find that ODC has failed to meet its
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's misconduct meets the
criteria of 5.11 (“serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which includes intentional
interference with the administration of justice... or the sale, distribution or importation of
controlled substances....”). Thus, the presumptive penalty is suspension,

Having determined the presumptive penalty, we must evaluate the aggravating and mitigating
fuctors in making a final recommendation to the Court*

After reviewing the record, we find:

* Specifically, the quaatity of MDMA in Respondent's posession would moet the definition of “Tricking” under
16 Dal G Section 4753,

* The Aggravating and Mitigating Factor are

‘Accravation’ 1 Prior disciplinary offenses. 2. Dishonest or salfsh motive, 3, Pater of misconduct. 4, Muliple
offenses. 5. Bad faith obstruction of te disciplinary proceeding by intentionally fling to comply wih les or
‘oxders ofthe dscpnary agency. 6 Submission of fle evidence, alse statements or ober deceptive practices
acing the disciplinary process. 7. Refusal to acknowledge wroepfl mature of conduct. 8, Valoerabiltyof victim,
9. Substantial experience fn the practice oflaw. 10. Inifference to makingrestiation. 11, egal cond,
including that involving the ue of eotoled substances

‘Mitzation: 1. Absence ofa prio disciplinary record. 2, Absence of «dishonest or selfish motive. 3. Personal or
cevotonal problems. 4. Timely god faith efor to rako restitution or rectify consequences of misconduct. 5. Full
and fee dsclomure to disciplinary board or coopertve attitude toward proceedings. 6 experience inthe practice
oflaw. 7, Character or reputation. 8. Physical disability. 8. Mental Disability. 10, Delay in diciplinary
proceeding 11 lterim rehabilitation. 12. Imposition of ether penalties or sanctions, 13. Remorse. 14
Remoteness of prior offenses,
 

Report and Recommendation of The Board on Professional Responsibility
‘In re Nixon, April 9, 2012.

1, Petitioner does not have a prior disciplinary record.

2. Petitioner isa veteran, having served in the first Gulf War.

3._ Petitioner isa politically involved, public-spirited advocate for open government and
‘B00d government.

4, He has done substantial pro bono work on behalf of the under-represented and vulnerable
members of society

5. Petitioner was highly praised for his level of professionalism and expertise by lawyers,
clients and co-workers.

6. Petitioner showed substantial and sincere remorse for his conduct, which led to violations
of his duties to the Court and his moral responsibility to his clients, friends and family.

7. He has been under supervision as pert of his criminal probation and has remained drug,
fee.

8, He has been in contact with Bar Association services for attomeys with issues.

9. Brandywine Counseling reported, sccording to a report dated November 17, 2011 with
respect to future drug and alcohol treatment, that none was indicated.

‘The ODC does not contend that there are aggravating factors inthis case. Upon review, other
‘than aggravating factor 11 (illegal conduct), which overlaps withthe misconduct itself, we find
that there are no aggravating factors. There are a number of mitigating factors inthis matter:
absence ofa prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free
disclosure to ODC, character and reputation, imposition of other penalties (the criminal
sanctions, which included serving jail time) and remorse. We find thatthe factor “reputation”
docs not fully recognize the benefit that Respondent has provided to the community through his
extensive public service as a lawyer, through pro bono work and public advocacy. Several
‘witnesses observed that the state will be worse off if Respondent is unable to provide these
public services in the capacity of a barred attorney. We give particular weight to his
contributions in this area.

‘The Court in Howard found that the mitigating factors outnumbered, but did not outweigh, the
aggravating factors. We find that inthis case they do. However, this finding does not lead us to
recommend reduction ofthe sanction of suspension to some lesser sanction, but to the
recommendation of a suspension for a shorter period than that imposed in Howard.
 

For these reasons, we recommend that the Court impose a suspension forthe period of two years,
retroactive to January 11, 2011, the date of Respondent’s interim suspension. As a condition of
reinstatement, Respondent would need to submit to drug testing to show that he is no longer
using illicit substances and demonstrate that he has met the conditions of his probation and/or
parole and has not been charged with or convicted of any other crimes involving illicit
‘substances during the period of suspension. Upon reinstatement, Respondent would be subject
to probation for a period of two years during which he would be subject to random drug tests as
directed by ODC and such other conditions as the Court may deem appropriate.

‘Board on Professional Responsibility

Lo)

RICHMOND L. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE

aces
Wiware
SANIEL F WOLCOTT I QOS
ee
Uc. MedDanut
at Co ADonied
‘Panel Member

Date: April 9, 2012