Title: Matter of Sullivan
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 11, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2003

IN THE 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: 
 
JOHN J. SULLIVAN, JR. 
 
Petitioner. 
§ 
§   No. 116, 2002 
§ 
§   Board Case No. 46, 2001 
§    
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 7, 2003 
  Decided: November 12, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of November 2003, upon consideration of John J. Sullivan, 
Jr.’s petition to modify the conditions of his reinstatement and the Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel’s (ODC) response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Sullivan was suspended from the practice of law for a period of 
eighteen months beginning September 1, 1998 for numerous violations of the 
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (DLRPC), including making 
false statements to clients, failing to act with diligence, and failing to provide 
competent representation.1  The Court granted Sullivan’s petition for 
reinstatement in 2002 subject to certain conditions, including obtaining 
                                                           
1In re Sullivan, 727 A.2d 832 (Del. 1999). 
 
 
-2-
malpractice insurance with limits approved by the ODC.2  Sullivan now seeks a 
modification of that condition to his reinstatement. 
 
(2) 
Sullivan contends that, despite his good faith efforts, he has been 
unable to obtain malpractice insurance.  He asserts that his inability “to obtain 
malpractice insurance has effectively prevented him from being wholly 
readmitted to the practice of law.”  Sullivan argues that the conditions of his 
reinstatement should be modified and made consistent with the conditions 
imposed upon another lawyer, Elizabeth Rodriguez Howard, who recently was 
reinstated following a four-year suspension.  In Howard’s case, the Court 
approved the Board’s condition that Howard be reinstated even if, despite good 
faith efforts, she could not obtain malpractice insurance, so long as Howard 
informed each client that she did not have malpractice insurance, and each 
client signed a written waiver acknowledging that fact.3  Sullivan urges the 
Court to modify the condition that he obtain malpractice insurance and allow 
him, instead, to adhere to the procedure set forth in In re Howard. 
(3) 
The ODC opposes Sullivan’s petition.  The ODC first contends 
that Sullivan has not provided adequate documentation to establish whether he, 
                                                           
2 In re Sullivan, 801 A.2d 933 (Del. 2002). 
3 In re Howard, Del. Supr., No. 701, 2002, Walsh, J. (Jan. 27, 2003) (adopting 
Board’s recommendation of reinstatement with conditions). 
 
 
-3-
in fact, has made good faith efforts to obtain malpractice insurance.  Second, 
the ODC argues that Sullivan’s case is distinguishable from In re Howard 
because Sullivan’s misconduct, unlike Howard’s, had resulted in several legal 
malpractice actions filed against him, with at least one of those actions resulting 
in a civil judgment.  Finally, the ODC asserts that Sullivan’s contention that he 
has complied with all of the other conditions of his reinstatement, except for the 
condition of malpractice insurance, is not accurate.  The ODC contends that 
Sullivan agreed to a schedule for repaying the costs of the disciplinary 
proceedings but has failed to adhere to the proposed schedule and has not 
requested a modification of the schedule.  
(4) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions, the 
Court has determined that Sullivan’s petition to modify the conditions of his 
reinstatement should be denied.  We find the circumstances of Sullivan’s prior 
misconduct, which led to his suspension, to be distinguishable from the 
circumstances in Howard’s case.  Sullivan’s prior misconduct led to several 
civil lawsuits asserting malpractice claims against him, and judgment was 
entered against him as a result.  Under the circumstances, we continue to 
believe, at the present time, that “it would be a breach of our duty to the public 
if we were to permit a lawyer with Sullivan’s history of malpractice to be 
 
 
-4-
reinstated as an active member of the Bar without adequate malpractice 
insurance coverage.”4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for modification 
of the conditions of reinstatement is DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
     Chief Justice 
                                                           
4 In re Sullivan, 801 A.2d at 937.