Title: Matter of a Member of the Bar: Holfeld
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 32, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 19, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF A  
 
§ 
MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE  
§  No. 32, 2013 
SUPREME COURT OF  
 
§ 
DELAWARE: 
 
 
 
§  Board Case No. 2012-0101-B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STEPHAN J. HOLFELD, 
 
§ 
 
Respondent.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  March 13, 2013 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  March 19, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on 
Professional 
Responsibility 
of 
the 
Supreme 
Court. 
 
PUBLIC 
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS.   
 
 
Patricia Bartley Schwartz, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
Wilmington, Delaware. 
 
 
Glynis Gibson, Esquire, Dover, Delaware, for respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Per Curiam: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an attorney 
disciplinary proceeding against Stephan J. Holfeld, Esquire (“Holfeld”).  
Holfeld was found to have violated Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of 
Disciplinary Procedure (“Procedural Rule”) 7(c) and Delaware Lawyers’ 
Rules of Professional Conduct (“Conduct Rule”) 8.4(d), by failing to file 
timely pre-certifications with his 2011 and 2012 Supreme Court Certificates 
of Compliance as required under the conditions of a private admonition.   
We have determined that the appropriate sanction is a public 
reprimand with conditions, as recommended by the Board on Professional 
Responsibility (the “Board”).   
Prior Proceedings 
 
Holfeld was admitted to the Delaware Bar in December, 1985.  At all 
times relevant to this proceeding, he practiced in the office of Holfeld & 
Becker, in Camden, Delaware.  In April, 2010, Holfeld discovered that a 
long-time employee in his office had been embezzling money from his law 
firm’s operating account and client escrow accounts.  Holfeld self-reported 
the theft to the ODC and the authorities, and fully cooperated with the 
investigation.  He also promptly repaid the stolen client funds and notified 
his clients about the theft.   
3 
 
After the ODC investigation into this incident, Holfeld accepted a 
private admonition with conditions.  That was Holfeld’s fourth private 
admonition, having previously received three private admonitions for other 
unrelated infractions since his 1985 admission.  One condition of Holfeld’s 
most recent private admonition was that he complete pre-certifications with 
his Supreme Court Certificates of Compliance for 2011 and 2012.  
Specifically:  
You shall have completed a pre-certification by a licensed 
certified public accountant for your 2011 and 2012 Certificate 
of Compliance, reporting the status of your compliance or lack 
thereof with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1.15 and 
Rule 1.15A. 
 
Holfeld agreed to this condition.  He was also advised that “failure to satisfy 
these conditions may result in reconsideration of this matter and prosecution 
of formal charges before the Board.”   
Present Proceedings 
 
 
Holfeld failed to file an accompanying pre-certification with his 2011 
Certificate of Compliance.  He testified to the Board that he had been 
confused by the professional rules that referred to an “audit,” whereas his 
private admonition had referred to a “pre-certification.”  Holfeld testified 
that as a result of his confusion, he mistakenly believed that his pre-
certification audit was supposed to track his tax year (and thus be due on 
4 
 
April 15th), and not his Certificate of Compliance (that was due on March 
1st).  The ODC eventually audited Holfeld’s 2011 books and records and 
discovered no irregularities. 
 
On April 2, 2012, Holfeld filed his 2012 Certificate of Compliance.  
Once again, the Certificate failed to include a pre-certification.  Holfeld had 
previously hired a certified public accounting firm, Chandler & Associates, 
to provide a 2012 pre-certification.   
He testified a later communication breakdown resulted in the 
accounting firm failing to perform the pre-certification audit in a timely 
manner.  The accounting firm later performed the audit, which again 
revealed no deficiencies in the books and records of Holfeld’s law firm. 
Procedural Background 
 
 
On October 3, 2012, the ODC filed a Petition for Discipline against 
Holfeld, alleging violations of Procedural Rule 7(c) and Conduct Rule 
8.4(d), for failing to file timely pre-certifications with his 2011 and 2012 
Certificates of Compliance.  Procedural Rule 7(c) provides that “[i]t shall be 
grounds for disciplinary action for a lawyer to violate the terms of any 
conditional diversion or private or public disciplinary or disability 
disposition.”  Conduct Rule 8.4(d) provides that “[i]t is professional 
5 
 
misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.” 
A hearing before the Board was held on November 15, 2012.  At the 
hearing, Holfeld claimed that:  first, he was confused about when the pre-
certification needed to be filed, whether with his Certificate of Compliance 
(on March 1st) or by the annual tax deadline (on April 15th); second, that he 
did not “intentionally” violate either Procedural Rule 7(c) or Conduct Rule 
8.4(d); and, third, that his behavior caused no harm, because both the 2011 
and 2012 pre-certifications revealed no irregularities in his law firm’s books 
and records.   
Board’s Decision 
The Board rejected Holfeld’s explanations, found a “clear and 
knowing” violation of Procedural Rule 7(c), and found that the ODC has 
proven by clear and convincing evidence a violation of Conduct Rule 
8.4(d).1  The Board also considered Holfeld’s aggravating and mitigating 
factors, including the fact that this was his fifth disciplinary action since his 
1985 admission to the Delaware Bar.   
 
 
                                          
 
1 In re Tenenbaum, 918 A.2d 1109, 1113 (Del. 2007). 
 
 
6 
 
In support of its decision, the Board relied upon In re Wilson2 and In 
re Martin.3  In those cases, the offending attorneys were held to have 
violated Procedural Rule 7(c) and Conduct Rule 8.4(d), and received public 
reprimands for failing to abide by the conditions set forth in their earlier 
private admonitions.4  Relying on those cases, the Board recommended that 
the following sanctions be imposed on Holfeld: 
1. 
A public reprimand;  
 
2. 
An obligation to provide pre-certifications with his 
Certificates of Compliance for years 2013 and 2014; 
 
3. 
Attendance at a law office management continuing legal 
education course; and 
 
4. 
Restitution for the cost of the ODC’s investigation, 
including the cost of the 2011 audit by the Lawyer’s 
Fund for Client Protection. 
 
Holfeld objected to some, but not all, of the Board’s recommendations. 
Standard of Review 
 
 
This Court has the “inherent and exclusive authority to discipline 
members of the Delaware Bar.”5  Although Board recommendations are 
helpful, we are not bound by those recommendations.6  This Court reviews 
                                          
 
2 In re Wilson, 886 A.2d 1279 (Del. Nov. 9, 2005) (table). 
3 In re Martin, 35 A.3d 419 (Del. June 22, 2011) (table). 
4 Id.; In re Wilson, 886 A.2d 1279. 
5 In re Martin, 35 A.3d 419, at *3 (citation omitted). 
6 Id.  
7 
 
the record independently and determines whether there is substantial 
evidence to support the Board’s factual findings, and reviews the Board’s 
conclusions of law de novo.7 
Public Reprimand With Conditions 
 
Holfeld objects to only two of the Board’s recommendations, 
specifically:  the public reprimand, and the obligation to provide a pre-
certification with his 2014 Certificate of Compliance.  Holfeld admits that 
“[t]he facts in this case are not disputed,” and that he “did not timely file the 
pre-certifications” for 2011 and 2012.  Nevertheless, Holfeld argues that he 
should not be publicly reprimanded, because:  none of his clients were 
harmed, unlike clients in In re Wilson and In re Martin; the 2011 and 2012 
pre-certifications revealed no irregularities with his books and records; and 
he “made a mistake.” 
 
The Board recommends a public reprimand with conditions as the 
appropriate sanction.  We have made an independent review of the record.  
The Board’s factual findings are supported by the record and we approve the 
recommended sanction.   
Holfeld had an obligation to comply strictly with the conditions 
imposed upon him with his earlier private admonition.  The absence of any 
                                          
 
7 Id. 
8 
 
injury to his clients and the fact that his 2011 and 2012 pre-certifications did 
not uncover any irregularities does not excuse his misconduct.  Holfeld’s 
disciplinary record of four successive private admonitions, followed by 
repeated ethical violations, demonstrates that a more severe sanction is 
necessary.  In re Wilson8 and In re Martin9 both support an imposition of a 
public reprimand with conditions.   
Conclusion 
 
It is hereby ordered that the following sanctions be imposed upon 
Holfeld: 
1. 
A public reprimand;  
 
2. 
An obligation to provide pre-certifications with his 
Certificates of Compliance for years 2013 and 2014; 
 
3. 
Attendance at a law office management continuing legal 
education course; and 
 
4. 
Restitution for the cost of the ODC’s investigation, 
including the cost of the 2011 audit by the Lawyer’s 
Fund for Client Protection. 
 
The Clerk is directed to distribute this opinion. 
 
                                          
 
8 In re Wilson, 886 A.2d 1279 (Del. Nov. 9, 2005) (table). 
9 In re Martin, 35 A.3d 419 (Del. June 22, 2011) (table).