Title: Delaware State Bar Ass'n v. Alexander
Citation: 386 A.2d 652
Docket Number: N/A
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 19, 1978

386 A.2d 652 (1978)
DELAWARE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Thomas ALEXANDER, Jr., Male Parents for Equal Rights, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and the Second Wives Coalition, an unincorporated association, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted July 5, 1977.
Decided April 19, 1978.
Andrew G. T. Moore, II, and R. Franklin Balotti, Wilmington, for petitioner.
Thomas Alexander, Jr., respondent, pro se.
Arlen B. Mekler, Wilmington, for the corporate respondents.
Before HERRMANN, C. J., DUFFY and McNEILLY, JJ.
*654 HERRMANN, Chief Justice:
The Delaware State Bar Association petitioned this Court for an injunction prohibiting the respondents from engaging in the unauthorized practice of the law, thus invoking this Court's inherent jurisdiction over the governance of the practice of law in this State. Delaware Optometric Corporation v. Sherwood, Del.Supr., 128 A.2d 812 (1957);[1]In re A Member of the Bar, Del. Supr., 257 A.2d 382 (1969).
*655 After an initial hearing upon the petition for injunction, this Court appointed Vice Chancellor Grover C. Brown as Special Master to hear and determine all issues of fact raised by the petition and to make appropriate conclusions of law; and, pendente lite, this Court issued a temporary restraining order dated March 22, 1977, enjoining the respondents from:
While the injunction proceeding was thus under consideration by the Special Master, this Court took judicial notice of public information that the respondent Thomas Alexander, Jr., had appeared before the Superior Court and the United District Court of Delaware "as counsel or `friend' for and on behalf of one James Thomas Hailstone"; and, thereupon, this Court referred to the Special Master the additional question of "whether Thomas Alexander, Jr., is, in fact and in law, guilty of contempt of the Order" entered earlier restraining him from such activity.
The Special Master has filed separate Reports as to each referral.
Upon the original referral, the Special Master made the following findings of fact:
"1. The petitioner is the Delaware State Bar Association, duly organized under and by virtue of the law of the State of Delaware. It was authorized to bring this action against the respondents by vote of its membership.
"2. The respondent Male Parents for Equal Rights (MPFER) is a Delaware corporation whose purpose is set forth in its certificate of incorporation as contained in respondents' Exhibit 8. The respondent The Second Wives Coalition is an unincorporated association which operates in conjunction with MPFER at the same address and by means of the same letterhead, and which thereby acquiesces in and joins with the activities taken by the respondent MPFER. The respondent Thomas Alexander, Jr. is the Executive Director of MPFER and acts with the authority of and on behalf of both MPFER and The Second Wives Coalition.
"3. The respondent Thomas Alexander, Jr. is not a member of the Delaware Bar, is not an attorney, and has had no formal legal education. The day-to-day activities of the respondents are in no way conducted under the supervision of a person admitted to the Delaware Bar.
"4. The respondents have appeared before Judges of the Courts of this State for the purpose of advising and being of assistance to parties to litigation then being conducted in the Courts of this State at times when such parties were not being represented by an attorney admitted to the Bar of this State. Specifically:
"5. Under date of January 3, 1976 the respondent MPFER, over the signature of Thomas Alexander, Jr. as its Executive Director, wrote to the Clerk of the Family Court of New Castle County requesting transcripts of hearings held before Honorable Robert W. Wakefield on November 26, 1975 and August 5, 1975. This request was made on behalf of A* * * M* * *, a party to action No. A-179, then pending in the Family Court. The transcripts were sought for the purpose of enabling M* * * to pursue an appeal pro se to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, and the letter was accompanied by notice of appeal signed by M* * * indicating that he would thereafter be proceeding in all matters pro se. The attached documents were typed by the respondent Alexander on behalf of M* * *.
"6. The respondents, through Thomas Alexander, Jr., have engaged in the drafting and preparation of pleadings and written applications in order that they might be used by litigants proceeding pro se in pending litigation before the Courts of this State as indicated by the following:
"7. By letter dated February 25, 1976 and submitted in the Family Court action of H* * * v. D* * * over the signature of Thomas Alexander, Jr. as Executive Director for MPFER, respondents drafted, prepared and filed a written argument, supported by statutory references, seeking the withdrawal of the complaint in a reciprocal nonsupport action initiated against Mr. H* * *.
"8. Under date of February 4, 1976 the respondents, through Thomas Alexander, Jr., as Executive Director, prepared, signed, served and filed in the Family Court action of P* * * v. W* * *, No. 5-6622 a pleading entitled `Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Standing' requesting on behalf of the respondnent J* * * P* * * that the complaint in the above action be dismissed with costs assessed against the complainant and with a further request for a stay of any hearing on the complaint until the motion to dismiss had been decided.
"9. The respondents, primarily through Thomas Alexander, Jr., have rendered advice and assistance to persons by making available and pointing out to them specific provisions of the Delaware Code and by informing them of the manner in which to proceed in the Family Court in order to avail themselves of such statutory provisions. Specifically:
"10. By letter dated March 21, 1977 the respondents, on behalf of M* * * J* * *, wrote to her husband, J* * * J* * *, advising him as to what was required of him under existing Delaware law to enable his wife to obtain an uncontested divorce from him in the Courts of this State and also advising him that since his wife was seeking the divorce he could not be compelled to pay alimony under Delaware law. In such letter the respondents undertook to provide Mr. J* * * with a certified copy of the divorce decree at such time as it was granted even though, in the same letter, the respondent Thomas Alexander, Jr. specifically pointed out that he was not a lawyer.
"11. The respondent MPFER has solicited business by running an advertisement in the News Journal newspapers in the City of Wilmington which advertisement was particularly and specifically designed to attract communications and membership in MPFER from persons in need of advice or assistance with regard to matters of divorce, separation, custody of children, child support, and visitation of children. Approximately one-half of the responses to such advertisement resulted in personal conferences between persons attracted by the advertisement and representatives of the respondents concerning the aforesaid matters.
"12. In at least some instances, the respondents have requested that persons seeking their assistance first join their organization by paying an annual membership fee of either $17 or $25 before respondents act in drafting or preparing documents and offering other services and assistance.
"13. Respondents do not limit their services to impecunious persons who are unable to afford the services of a trained and licensed attorney."
Upon those Findings of Fact, the Special Master made the following Conclusions of Law:
The respondents filed no exceptions to the Reports of the Special Master. Nevertheless, at oral argument the respondents were permitted to present the following objections pertaining to the injunction proceeding:
(1) The respondents have a constitutionally protected right to engage in the activities here involved;
(2) The Special Master's Conclusions of Law Nos. 2, 4, and 6 are too broad and sweeping; and
(3) Del.Const., Art. I, § 7,[2] permits lay persons "to gain access to the courts for a criminal defendant" via habeas corpus proceedings.
Neither the first nor the second of the respondents' objections merit further discussion; they are hereby overruled.
As to the third objection: It is manifest on the face of Art. I, § 7 that the constitutional protection there set forth relates solely to the right to compulsory process for the procurement of witnesses to appear on behalf of the defendant in a criminal case. Clearly, a prohibition against appearing as "friend" for another in court or on court documents, in habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise, does not contravene any constitutional guaranty under Art. I, § 7.
Delaware has long recognized the concept of a next friend who may seek the protection of the court on behalf of one whose disability prevents it. This was recognized in Wooley on Delaware Practice, § 128:
Compare Superior Court Civil Rule 17(c) providing for the appointment by the Court of "next friend" for a juvenile or incompetent person.
Thus, the respondents' effort to invoke the doctrine of "next friend" by reliance upon the language of Article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution, is wholly inappropriate under the circumstances, and contrary to Delaware law. Clearly, Art. I, § 7 is not authorization for anyone to represent other litigants in court under the guise of being a "friend". The purpose of the Art. I, § 7 provision is simply to give one who is under some disability, physical or legal, the protection that another may act for him in the procurement of subpoenas assuring the appearance of witnesses to testify on his behalf at the trial of a criminal charge against him. The respondents' reliance upon this constitutional guaranty is patently absurd.
We confirm especially the conclusion of the Special Master that the activities engaged in by the respondents, as described in the Report, constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The authorities support his conclusion beyond question:
The respondents produce no authority to the contrary.
*662 Accordingly, upon the original referral in the injunction proceeding, the following order will be entered by this Court:
Upon the supplemental referral relative to the contempt proceeding, the Special Master made the following Findings of Fact:
And thereupon the Special Master made the following conclusion of law:
The respondents filed no exception to the Supplemental Report of the Special Master. However, at oral argument, the respondents were permitted to renew their reliance upon the "any one for him" provision of 10 Del.C. § 6905[4] as justification for the activities of Alexander and an associate in the Hailstone habeas corpus proceeding, in the face of this Court's restraining order *664 against acting as counsel or "friend" of another in Court or on legal documents. In the Hailstone matter, Alexander and an associate signed, verified, and filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as "next friend" for Hailstone and attempted to act as counsel for him in Court.
The Courts are not required to recognize any person who may choose to make representations to the Courts for another under § 6905, regardless of legal capacity and standing so to act. By the restraining order, and the prima facie showing upon which it was based, Alexander forfeited and lost whatever legal standing and capacity he may have had to act for another under § 6905. By the orders set forth herein, that forfeiture and incapacity is continued.
Moreover, in addition to his loss of personal capacity to act for another under § 6905, Alexander lacked any and all standing under § 6905 for want of a showing of necessity for a surrogate for Hailstone. The petition was not signed by Hailstone nor any reason given for his failure to sign. There was no showing that Hailstone was inaccessible or unable to communicate personally with the Court, by letter or otherwise, to make his own application for release on habeas corpus. A petition to act for another under § 6905 must contain some such showing of necessity.
The analogous Federal rule appears in a companion activity by Alexander in the U. S. District Court for Delaware (U. S. A. ex rel. Ellers v. Redman, et al., C.A. No. 77-204), in which, just as in the Hailstone matter, Alexander sought to act as "next friend" for a petitioner for a writ of habeas. There, in language which we endorse, the Court dismissed the petition, stating:
And the Court quoted this with approval:
Accordingly, upon the supplemental referral in the contempt proceeding, the following order will be entered by this Court:
Before concluding, we add the following in support of the Special Master's denial of the respondents' claim to the right of jury trial upon the contempt referral, *665 under 11 Del.C. § 1271[5] and Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S. Ct. 1886, 26 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1970): There is no merit in this contention. The provision of § 1271 relied upon is part of the Delaware Criminal Code and must be limited to certain types of criminal contempt proceedings, the primary purpose of which is to punish. But the unauthorized practice of law is not a criminal offense in this State as it is in some others. E. g., Rhode Island Bar v. Automobile Service Assoc., R.I.Supr., 55 R.I. 122, 179 A. 139 (1935); State Bar Assoc. of Conn. v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co., Conn.Supr., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863 (1958); and the primary purpose of these proceedings is, and has been, coercive and not punitive.
Clearly, therefore, the instant contempt proceeding is civil in nature. While the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is often not exact, City of Wilmington v. General Teamsters Local Union, Del.Supr., 321 A.2d 123 (1974), the general guidelines are determinative in the instant proceeding. The two types of contempt are distinguished not on the basis of the offending action in question, but on the basis of the purpose of the proceeding, which is usually indicated by the type of sanction applied. Dobbs, Contempt of Court: A Survey, 56 Corn.L.Rev. 183 (1971). If the purpose is coercive or remedial, the proceeding is civil; if the purpose is punitive, the proceeding is criminal. State v. Mancari, Del.Supr., 223 A.2d 81, 82 (1966). Since, as demonstrated by the sanction imposed, the purpose of the instant proceeding was coercive and remedial, not punitive, in that it was brought to coerce the respondents to finally cease and desist from pursuing an improper and persistent[6] course of conduct, it is a civil contempt proceeding as to which § 1271 has no relevancy and there is no right to jury trial.
We find unpersuasive the respondent's assertion that the distinction between the two types of contempt depends on whether the contemnor violates an order made for the benefit of an adverse party or whether he is disrespectful of the Court, citing In Re Morse, Vt.Supr., 126 A. 550 (1924). It is conceivable that the violation of an order made for the benefit of an adverse party may be punished as criminal contempt and disrespect of the Court may be handled as civil contempt through coercive remedies. Moreover, under either circumstance, the Court's dignity and processes are violated by the contemnor. See Dobbs at 241. Ultimately, then, whether a proceeding is to punish disrespect of the Court or to afford a remedy to an adverse party depends, in the final analysis, upon the nature of the sanction.
The remedial, coercive nature of the sanction here imposed is manifest. It is remedial and coercive, not punitive, because it is not a determinate sentence designed to punish disobedience to a Court order which cannot be redressed; rather, it is aimed at forcing the respondents to comply with the Court's order, imposing upon the respondents a continuing incentive to refrain from practicing law by relieving them of the burden of imprisonment so long as there is compliance. See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 305, 67 S. Ct. 677, 702, 91 L. Ed. 884 (1947) *666 upholding conditional suspended imprisonment as a proper sanction for civil contempt as a means of compelling obedience, and preserving the civil nature of the sanction even if the suspension is subsequently lifted and the execution of the sentence ordered. See also 39 Minn.L.Rev. 447 (1955); 67 Harv.L.Rev. 889 (1954). That the sanction may actually have a punitive effect is not determinative; the nature of the contempt proceeding depends on the primary or dominant purpose of the sanction and not its incidental effects. Gompers v. Bucks Store and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797 (1911).
Accordingly, there is no merit in the respondents' claim to the right of jury trial in this proceeding.
[1]  In Sherwood, 128 A.2d  at 816-7, this Court stated:

"The profession thus established arose out of a public necessity for the exclusion from the practice of law of unqualified persons. The attorney thus became an officer of the court and an important adjunct to the administration of justice. The profession from the very start was affected with a public interest and was created for the protection of the public.
* * * * * *
"Originally, anyone could practice law, but for the protection of the public it was found necessary to circumscribe that right. The advance of civilization and its material things has done nothing to change that fundamental fact. The existence of the legal profession is continued for the assistance of the public under limitations imposed by the court. Violations of those limitations are punished by the court through its process of citation for contempt.
* * * * * *
"The admission of attorneys to practice, and the exclusion of unauthorized persons from practice lie within the province of this court. A violation of this court's exclusive right to license attorneys at law by presuming to practice law without such license is a contempt of its authority and punishable as such."
[2]  Del.Const., Art. I, § 7, provides in pertinent part:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right * * * to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself, his friends or counsel, for obtaining witnesses in his favor * * *."
[3]  The terms of this injunctive order are fashioned especially to govern the future activities of the respondents in the light of their numerous wilful, persistent, and organized activities as set forth in the Report of the Special Master. The terms of the instant order are not intended to affect the legitimate activities of others engaged regularly as marriage counsellors, prisoner's aides, or other legitimate endeavors which do not encroach upon the practice of law.
[4]  10 Del.C, § 6905 provides in pertinent part:

"Application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made by the party complaining, or anyone for him * * *."
[5]  11 Del.C. § 1271 provides in pertinent part:

"A person is guilty of criminal contempt when he engages in any of the following conduct:
* * * * * *
"(3) Intentional disobedience of resistance to the process, injunction, or other mandate of a court; * * *."
Such criminal contempt is classified by the Statute as a Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
[6]  In addition to the Ellers, Hailstone and other proceedings referred to herein in which Alexander and his associates attempted to appear as "friend" and counsel for others, the record discloses a similar activity purportedly on behalf of Gerald H. Lindell in which Alexander was held in contempt of the Superior Court and sentence to 5 days imprisonment for his insistence upon appearing and acting on behalf of Lindell, despite the Judge's admonitions. [See 11 Del.C. § 1271(1) and § 1272 providing for summary disposition of a criminal contempt committed in the presence of the Court and "tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority."]