Title: Matter of Beauregard

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 — § No. 391, 2005

 

COURT OF THE STATE OF §
DELAWARE: § Board Case No. 25, 2004 and
§ 7,2005
ANDRE M. BEAUREGARD, ESQ., §
§
Respondent. §
Submitted: September 20, 2005

Decided: October 24, 2005
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER

This 24" day of October 2005, it appears to the Court that the Board on
Professional Responsibility has filed its Report in this matter pursuant to Rule (d)
of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Neither the
Respondent nor the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed objections to the
Board's Report. The Court has reviewed the matter pursuant to Rule 9(e) and
concludes that the Board's Report should be approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report of the Board on

Professional Responsibil

   

ty filed on August 24, 2005 (copy attached) is hereby

APPROVED. The matter is hereby CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 
Ce. Cour HI

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

 

In the Matter of a Member : CONFIDENTIAL i
of the Bar of the State of Delaware :
ANDRE M BEAUREGARD, Board Case No. 25, 200457
Respondent. No.7,2005

 

00. 391, 2605
REPORT OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

‘ThePanelof tie Board on Professional Responsibility sppointed thearthis matter consisted of

 

liabet M. MeGeeve, Exqur,lamesH. Ger and David Fry, Je, Esq, Chic. Abrarng was
eldinthe Sipreme Court Courtroom in Wilmington, Delaware on Fray hune3, 2005. The Ofc of
Disciplinary Counsel *ODC™)wasreresenedby Paci Barley Schwar, Eaqure and Mary Susan
Much, Eurand Respondent, AndreM. Beauregard Eur was eset by Wiliam Sia Lee,
igre. APrehearingStpulaton nd Joint Recommendaionf Sanction vas fe wih he Beuon tt
date, Par ofthe Stipltionconsned 27 amie fats snd volitions. Pat Il of te Spulaon
‘contin statement ofthe aggravating fcr a venting fro. Parl of he Stpuaion
Contained joint recommendation of ston with conditions
BACKGROUND

A petition for discipline was filed against the respondent by the ODC on March 2,2008. The
 

petition for dscipline was approvedby a Panelof te Preliminary Review Comamite. The petition alleged
total of eight violations ofthe Delaware Lawyas' Rules ofProfesionsl Conduct (the Rules”) follows:

COUNTONE: FAILURE OF MANAGING PARTNER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
WITH RULES

COUNTTWO: _ FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD CLIENT PROPERTY
COUNTTHREE: FAILURE TO PROMPTLY DISBURSE FUNDS
COUNT FOUR: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS

FAILURE OF MANAGING PARTNER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
‘WITH RULES

 

COUNTSIX! _ FAILURE TO SUPERVISE NON-LAWYER EMPLOYEES

COUNT SEVEN: ENGAGING IN CONDUCT INVOLVING DISHONESTY, FRAUD,
DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION

COUNT FIGHT: ENGAGING IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

L ADMITTED FACTS

 

1, Beauregard is member ofthe Barof the Supreme Court of Delaware. Hewas admitiedto

the Barn 1986, ALalltimes relevant othisPet

 

Beauregard was parnerin the fim of Brown,
Shiels, Beauregnd & Chasanov (the Fin", which as offices in Dever, Georgetown and Rchabth
Beach, Delaware

2, Delaware lawyers areobligedoilean sual registration statement with the Court, which

Includes Cifcate of Compliance, by whichalawyer, or managing parte on bebalf ofthe fim, cerifies
to the Court thatthe frm is properly maintaining books and records in compliance with the specific
‘requirements ofthe Rules. The Court expets that lwyerscompleting the Cetificate of Compliance will
‘undertake the appropriate review and inquiry into matters involving their aw practice books and records
‘and ther tax obligations, soa to enable them accurately to answerall of the items identified on the
Certificate.

3. Beauregard was managing pariner ofthe Firm in 2000 and 2004, andis so designated on the
Cenifcates of Compliance filed by the Firm in tose years. Beauregard was, however, the attomey
‘responsible for the books and records in the Georgetown office at all times relevant to this Petition.

BOARD CASE NO, 7,2005

4, Based onacomplaint received by the ODC in 2000, it was agreed withthe ODC thatthe Firm
‘ould institte a firm-wide integrated conflicts system that would include all three offices,

5. The Firm failed to implement such a system.

6, This failure was indicative of th Fim’ inability to managethe tives offices ssa unified Firm.

BOARD CASE NO. 25, 2004

‘1. In December 2003, the Firm reported to ODC that Christy Kaiser, an employee, had
‘embezzled approximately $140,000 from the Dover office's realestate escrow account (‘Doveraccout”)
Although the Firm claims itis one Firm with thee offices, the ODC’s investigation revealed thatthe
Georgetown office and the Dover office maintain separate real estate escrow accounts.

8, On January 22,2004 atthe request ofthe ODC, Joseph McCullough, the auditor forthe
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (“LFCP"), conducted an audit of the Firm's Georgetown office
financial books andrecords. Mr. McCullough conducted various follow-up aus, which culminated in
the issuance of hs written report on Novernber 15, 2004,

3
9. According to Mr. MeCullough’s avdit the Georgetown real estate escrow account
(Georgetown account”) which was opened inthe Fallof2000had never been property maintained in
accordance withthe Rules. Specifically, Mr. McCullough reported that for the plicable period
‘Beauregard (1) sie to maintain client subsidiary ledger forthe Georgetown account; (2) failed to
reconcile the total of lent balances tothe reconciled balance; and (3) forthe period October 2000 through
January 31, 2002, had 136 outstanding checks, totaling $322,812.79 forthe Georgetown account.

10,Dueto Beauregerd’s failure o reconcile the Georgetown account or keep client lists, Mr,
‘McCullough was unableto determine whether any negative client balances existed; wheter Beauregard
had any unidentified funds inthe Georgetown account; or whether camied fees were transferedtothe
‘operating account on

11, The employee originally responsible forthe Georgetown account had resigned from the Fim

 

imely basis,

March 2002, The Fimbecame swat ofdefcincies inthe Georgetown account inthe summer of 2002
‘whenan employee, Ms. Carole Millon, who hadretized from the Dover office and was hired to dothe
Georgetown real estate reconciliations, advised them of deficiencies.

12.Ms, Milton recreated the transactions ane created a client subsidiary lige forthe Georgetown,
‘account through ate 2002, The client information was downloaded to over and checks egantoissue
tothoseclensthied partis to whom they were owed. During thisprocessitbecame apparent that Ms.
“Miltonhad not properly recorded the daa foreach realestate transaction and the defiienciesremsined
sunvesolved.

13,Onorsbout October 2003, Beauregard cortracied with Thomas Sombar, CPA, toassist with
the reconciliation ofthe Georgetown account. Mr.Sombar advised Beauregard that would not be

“economically feasible” fr his counting frm to reconcile he Georgetown account bank balance wi the

‘4

 
PI UE (OF42:06 p.m. 10-19-2005 sae

lint’ subleiger due whis lack of confidence in the dollar mounts providedby Beauregar's office staf
Mr Somibr noted numerous negative balances and clint stings with balances dating back early 2001.
‘Ma. Sombar determined that deposits into the Georgetown account had notbeen recorded a they were
‘made and he concluded tha the account would need oberecrested-cveryansaction wouki need tobe
reviewed, al checks pertaining to thal transaction would need tobe logged and checked foraccounting
sccuracy. Lastly, he suggested that Beauregard open a new reel estate escrow account forthe
Georgetown office and begin processing all realestate mater through the new account.

14. Atthetimeof the follow-up audit on October 20,2004, Mr. McCullough determined that 166
‘checks remained outstanding, totaling $48,834.51 in ndisbursed funds from the old real estate escrow
account, There was a wite deposit $75,135.30, listed as outstanding since October 2003, which was
‘determined to belong othe Dover account. The books revealed unidentified transfers of funds, which
involved the Dover office.

15.Mr. MeCullough concluded that the “lack of communication between offices (Dover and
Georgetown] contributed to the problem.”

COUNT TWO: BEAUREGARD FAILED TO SAFEGUARD CLIENT PROPERTY

16. Rule 1.15(a) states, in part, that a lawyer shall maintain “complete records of
[escrow] account funds...for a period of five years afer the completion ofthe events that they record”

17. By fling tomaintain client listings anda client subsitiry ledger, fr the Georgetown count,
‘October 2000 through January 2004, suchthat he would be ableto determine to whom and what amcunts
‘were owed, Beauregard admits he violated Rule 1.18(a).

COUNT THREE: BEAUREGARD FAILED TO PROMPTLY DISBURSE FUNDS

18, Rule 1.15(b) sates, in par, “a lawyer shall prompily deliver to the client or 8

3
‘hird person any funds..that the client or third person is entitled to receive.”
19. By fling promptly disburse $322,812.79, consisting of 36 chee, fom he Georgetown

secourt forthe period October 2000 trough January 31,2002, Beauregard adits he violated Rule

1150).

COUNT FOUR: BEAUREGARD FAILED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS AND RECORDS

20, Rule1.15(@ sets forth detailed and specific requirements for themsntenance ofattoreys*
‘tooks nd recordsand handling of pctice etd find, inlaing request "all idciary
sexe eat esrow account” Specifially this Rue requires (2) 0 fnds disbursed fr aclientor
‘nd party fom a lawyer's icin account be in exces of finds received fom that tt oti pary,
sod thatf throug enor funds dishsrsod for aclcn or third party excead funds recived from ha elient
‘or third pay the wyer shall ansfer funds fom the noo fiduciary acount inatimelymannerto cover
‘heencessdsbursement{i.e promplly erect cien negative balances and () 0 funds which should
dave ben disbursed shall reanain inthe icy account (outstanding checks)

21 By fling omsintin cet isings an aclict subsidiary ledger the Georgetown account
forattzee-yea period im Fall 2000 tough January 2004; andby lingo promptly disburse funds
fiom the Georgetown account, Beauregard admits he violated Rae 1.15).

COUNT SIX: BEAUREGARD FAILED TO SUPERVISE NON-LAWYER EMPLOYEES

22, RaleS3 sxesthatnemployingnon-lawyer assistants, “sparmerin slaw Sm shall male
reasonable effort ensure ta the firma. .mcaswes ivingresenable assurance tat theperson’s
‘conducts compasBle withthe profesionl obligations ofthe lawyer layer having dist supervisory
authority over avon lawyer sallmake reasonable ffs to ensure that he person'sconductiscompabe
‘ith the professional obligations ofthe lawyer; and lawyer shall be responsible forconductof sacha

6
™_

persathatwouldbea violation fhe Rules of Professional Conductfengagediny the lyerithe
lawyer inthe condet involved orfbelanyersaparmein tlw Sim. orbas det siperisaty
suthorty over the person andlnows ofthe conduct atime when ts consequences cane aveiedor
ritigated but fils to tke reasonable remedial action”

23. By fling o supervise hose empleyeesinthe Georgetown ofce who wee responsi fr
mining te F's books andreonsin socordarce withthe Rales onic Fallof200though2003,
‘Beauregard adits he volted Role 83

COUNT SEVEN: ENGAGING IN CONDUCT INVOLVING DISHONESTY, FRAUD,
DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION

24, Rale 8.40) provides tha itis profesional misconduct fora lawyer to engage
in conduct involving dshoneity, fo, deci or misrepresenation™

25, By fling with the Court Ceifcaes of Compliance for 2001, 2002, 2003, eachof which
contained zaccuraterepretctations othe Coan egring the tatsof the Georgetownotfce'sbooks

and records, Beauregard admits he violated Rule 8.4(0,

COUNT EIGHT: ENGAGING IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE,
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

26, Rule 84(@) provides thats profession miscondoct for lawyer to "engage in conducthat
{is prejudicial tothe administration of justice”

27.By filing withthe Cour Cerificates of Compliance for 2001, 2002, and 2003 eachof which
contained inaccurate representation othe Cour regarding the status of the Georgelowm of8ie's books

and records, Beauregard admits he violated Rule 8.4(8).
 

M1. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS!

‘Asgravating Factors

‘The ODCand Beauregard stipulate thatthe folowing agravatng factors exist inthis disciplinary
‘matter:

(1) Beauregard engaged ina pattem of misconduct. He filed tomainain hie lw officebooks and
records in accordance with the Roles from October 2000 through January 2004,
He failed to supervise his employee bookkeeper fom October 2009 through January 2004, And,
‘a file to accurately represent the status ofhisbooks and records on his Cerifieates of Compliance fled
‘withthe Cour for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. (Standard § 9.22(c)];

(2) Beauregard engaged in multiple offenses ~ 6 Rules violations. [Standard § 9.22(6)]}; and

(@) Blenuregard has substantial experience in the practice of law. (Standard § 9.226}

‘Mitigating Factors

‘OPC and Beauregard stipulate thatthe fllowing mitigating factors apply in this disciplinary mater:

(1) Beauregard has no prior disciplinary record (Standard § 9.32(a);

(@) Beauregard has made efforsorectfy the consequences of hie misconduct including: (a)
instnuing remedial measures correct the deficiencies in the Georgetown office's books and records
{including theretention ofan independent CP snd obtsning additional computer software andconsuling

‘ihe gpevaing tn itgning cor ese in this Stipulation ae derived fromthe ABA Sandarss
forlmraing Laser Smsions $99.2 a 93 (198) (as amended Te 1992) (he Stns)

 

 
with Richard Hermann Esquire wth regard othe implementation of computerized colli sereeing:
snd (6 aprecing wo disolve the Fem. [Standad § 93210);
(@) Beauregard cooperating wih ODC and inthis proceeding before the Board [Standard §

9.326

 

(4) During the period in question, Respondent Beauregard experienced the death of his
‘motherand his father-in-law, adsabling stroke to his father, and the dissohution of mariage [Standard
Sections 9.32(0)} and

(6) During this period, Respondent Beauregard was dissbled and then recuperating from shoulder
surgery, which was followed by the onset of sympfoms eventually diagnosed as Maltiple Sclerosis.
(Standard Sections 932(4))

‘The Panel hereby incorporates the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in Part I of the
‘Stipulation in their entirety.
‘STATEMENT OF FACTS
‘Mr. Beauregard estifid that he began employment withthe Brown, Shel firmin June or July of
1990, became a junio partner in 1994, and became tbe parinerin chergeofthe Rehoboth Beach office
4n 199S, Hisares of prctce include criminal defense, personal njury, nd civilmaters. His primary area
‘scriminal defense. He indicated tate works from the Rehoboth ofc and makes very minimal use of

the Georgetown and Dover offices.

 
 

Me Beauregardindcated that inthe late 1980's the firm was runing there and be wasmade
‘managing partsero put the fimain he black. He decided o cut oss and improve profits, Henaw
reales that he needed greater supervision ofthe stain the frm.

Me Beaueyas fur plans havenoyetbeca ade. He would ke tconine practicing in
Rehoboth Beach. He has made some calls to ober attorneys, but has no definite plans as of yet

Me Besureparinicaed at hari afullimesfatheRcbbothofie and lofi les ae
kept. Thereisncoflics syle inplae. Tebookkepingisnow nom the Georgeown office
He understands he conditions of te Stipulation an Joint Recommendation of Senctios.

Ms Beaurepad testified ato some mitigating factors. He hes had severe health problems
including 2 agnosis of multiple sclerosis, He has had tretent tJohas Hopkins, receiving three
injections per week aswell as chemotherapy. Ever sx mons he ha spinal tap o an MRI, He
coniaust go te ofc on dl basis and parisien physic repent adres the conons
ofhisiseae, He inticated hat he pas five years ave been devastating to him for several reasons
including the death of his mentor, Desa Bets.

Oncross-examinatoa, the Respondent acknowledged thatthe real estate account was the only

 

account in Sussex County where the auitr noted significant deficiencies. That sccoumtis inactive. The
Georgetown saiThas pata consideableamount oftime and effort nto the painstaking research ofeach
and every settlement ile which s esimated tobe approximately 1,00 les. Therestillremains abalnce
{nthe inactive acount and thestaffemains committed to working on identifying the clients and, fb cients

cannot be identified, the amounts wil be escheated tothe sate, The remaining balance that accounts

 
‘proximately $13,600.00. Mr. Beauregard confirmed that he stil ntends to practice aw bute kzows
fom experience that be should not continue todo soifhis physical problems make it impossible forhim.
todos,

‘VIOLATIONS

‘The Panel finds that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) Rule 1.15(0) Rule 1.15(8),Rale5.3,
Rule 6.4(¢), and Rule .4(4). The Panel accepts the stipulated violations set forth in the Stipulation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

‘Upon consideration af the evidence presented the stipulation ofthe partes andthe sgaravating
snd mitigating factors st forts inthe stipulation, the Panel accepts te recommendations ofcounseland
‘recommends thatthe respondent be publicly reprimanded for his violtion ofthe aforessi rules, subject
to the following terms:

Practice imitations

(1) Pursuant to Role 8(6)(9) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
‘Beauregard shallhave imitation on the nature andorextet of hs practice. He wil issolvetheFimand
‘he partnership curently mown as Brown, Shies, Ctasanov & Beauregard as soon as practicable bit no
later than December 31, 2005.

(2) If Beauregard is anamed partner and/or principal ina firm that has more than coe office,
‘Beauregard must ensure that the conflict system inthe frm is centralized in themainoffice and each office
"mst benetworkedby compute withthe main office inorderto perform conflictchecks. Within ty days
‘ofsuchan occurrence, Beauregard shall file withthe ODCreportby Richard Hemmann, Esquire, oran

n
ces af nil gating he sof new Fi sonhsromnng mechan ining
a description of that system and whether or not it is, in fact, compliant with the sbove requirement.

(3) Beauregard is a named partner and/or a principal in firm that has more than one office,
‘Beauregard mus ensure tha thebooks and records andbarkaccounseacompassedby Rul 1.1Sand
Rule 115A are maintained in the main office.

‘Conditions

(1) By no later than December 31, 2005, Beauregard shall close the inactive Wilmington Trust real
sta account fds shall have een ens, disbursed, rtanseedto a separ scout wating
escheat tthe Sate of Deleware.

2) Daring hein ying the mposionofthe psiepimand on qsaretybaie
(every tree month) Beaurgae shallhavecatia tobe Bl withthe ODC anaffidaviby alicsasd
ceric pubic aeourtan tall ofhis new Sins law practice books, records and bank accounishave
beenmsintined during the preceding qurerinfilconpliance with Rule.15. This conn sallbe
fective a long es Beauregard is principal and/or named parmerin firm.

(©) Daring second year flowing hemposonof ibe publrerimand.ona semana
basis ever simon), Beamepad shal have cused oe filed withthe ODC an fiavitbya licens
cert pubic accountant that ellis new fms lw practicebocks,recordsandbank counts have
beenmainiind during the preceding quarerinfullcompliance with Rule .1S.Thisconiionsallbe

fective as Jong as Beauregard i a principal andor named parte in 2 firm.
(8) During the third year following the imposition ofthe public reprimand, Beauregard shal
hhavecausedio be filo with his Cerificate of Compliance ape-certfcation auditby a licensed certified
Public accountant with a copy to ODC. This condition shall be effective as long as Beauregardisa
principal and/or named partner infirm.

(5) Beauregard shall cooperate prompily and filly with the ODCin its efforts to monitor
‘compliance with the conditions of the public reprimane, inching, but not limited to, the following:

(2) Beauregard will filly cooperate withthe performance of any audit ofhis new fm'slaw

_ractce books andrecorésby an auditor forthe Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection; and

(©) Beauregard shall cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of any allegations of

lunprofessionalconduct which may come w the attention of the ODC. Upon request of

the ODC, Beauregard shall provide authorization for releate of information and
documentation to verifjompliance with the terms of bis probation.

(6) Ifthe ODC concludes, afer giving Beauregard an opportunity to respond, that he has
Violated the conditions ofthe public reprimand, the ODC may ile apetiton directly withthe Couto issue
‘Rule to Show Ceuses to why addtional sanctions shoul not be imposed forthe additonal violations,
the violations of the conditions ofthe public reprimand, or both,

(7) Pursuant to Procedural Rule 27, Beauregard shal pay the ODC’s costs in this disciplinary
‘matter promptly upon the presentation of estatementof costsby the ODC. Beauregard shal also pay the
‘costs of the audits ofthe Georgetown office performed by Mr. McCullough, promptly upon the

presentation of statement of such costs.
(8) Beauregard shall ile withthe ODC areportby Richard Henman, Esquirereguding the
statusofhis ew finn’ sconflicis screening mectanism, including description ofthat system end whether

‘or not its, in fact, used,
Dated:

Dated:

Alla
TEMES H. GEER

ELIZABETH M. MeGEEVER

DAVIDI.- FERRY, JR.

1s
 

mr ere 108

 

JAMES H. GEER

ass afnfos Ponstel

Dated:

 

1s
mn PRT LINE T M4408 pm 10-40-2005 TNO

JAMES. GEER

TLIZABETHM. MeGEEVER

DAVID, ,

1s
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
"hereby cenify that acopy of the within Report ofthe Board on Professional Responsibility was

‘served in the manner indicated on August _ 27 _2005 upon the following:

BYHAND.

Patricia Bartley Sehwart, Esquire
‘Mary Susan Much, Esquire

Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Carvel State Office Building, 11% Floor
820. French Street

‘Wilmington, DE 19801

BYEIRST CLASS MAIL

Williaa Swain Lee, Esquire
701 Rehoboth Avenue
Reboboth Beach, DE 19971

 

6