Title: Matter of Barrett
Citation: 630 A.2d 652
Docket Number: N/A
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 22, 1993

630 A.2d 652 (1993)
In the Matter of a Retired Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware: Robert T. BARRETT.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: September 14, 1993.
Decided: September 22, 1993.
J. Jay Lazzeri of Barrows, McNamara, Scanlon, Malkewicz, and Taylor, P.A., Dover, for respondent.
Charles Slanina, Disciplinary Counsel for Bd. on Professional Responsibility, Wilmington.
Before MOORE, WALSH and HOLLAND, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
This is a Disciplinary Proceeding. A panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board")[1] held a hearing involving charges of professional misconduct against the Respondent, Robert T. Barrett ("Barrett"). Bd.Prof.Resp.R. 9(d).[2] The Board has issued a final report to this Court ("Report").
The record reflects that Barrett is responsible for the loss of client property by his negligent failure to preserve the client's funds in a segregated bank account. The client has been reimbursed by the Delaware Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. The Court has concluded that Barrett should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.
The Board's findings of fact with respect to the underlying charges of professional *653 misconduct, as set forth in its Report, are in pertinent part, as follows:
The Board's findings of fact with respect to the underlying charges of professional misconduct, as set forth in its Report, are in pertinent part, as follows:
The Board's conclusions of law with respect to the underlying charges of professional misconduct, as set forth in its Report, are in pertinent part, as follows:
This Court has made a careful and independent review of both the factual findings and the conclusions of law that are set forth in the Board's Report. Our scope of review with regard to the Board's factual findings is to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support those findings. Matter of Brewster, Del.Supr., 587 A.2d 1067, 1069 (1991). We review the Board's conclusions of law de novo. Id. We are satisfied that the record before us clearly supports the findings of fact and the conclusions of law made by the Board in this case. See id.
The inherent and exclusive authority for disciplining members of its Bar is vested in this Court. In re Green, Del. Supr., 464 A.2d 881, 885 (1983). This Court has wide latitude in determining the form of discipline to be imposed. Matter of a Member of the Bar, Del.Supr., 226 A.2d 705, 707 (1967). In imposing sanctions, this Court is guided by its prior precedents. See Matter of Christie, Del.Supr., 574 A.2d 845, 853 (1990). Those prior precedents reflect, inter alia, that this Court has cited, with approval, the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See, e.g., Matter of Brewster, Del.Supr., 587 A.2d 1067, 1069-71 (1991); Matter of Clyne, Del. Supr., 581 A.2d 1118, 1125 (1990); Matter of Higgins, Del.Supr., 582 A.2d 929, 932 (1990). The relevant American Bar Association Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provides:
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 4.1.
The intentional conversion of a client's property to one's own use has always resulted in disbarment by this Court. See, e.g., Matter of Higgins, Del.Supr., 582 A.2d 929, 932 (1990); Matter of Sullivan, Del.Supr., 530 A.2d 1115, 1117-19 (1987); Matter of England, Del.Supr., 421 A.2d 885, 887 (1980); In re Clark, Del.Supr., 250 A.2d 505, 506 (1969). However, Barrett was neither charged nor found to have knowingly converted a client's funds to his own use. The Board found that Barrett violated the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct by negligently failing to preserve his clients' property.
We have considered the Board's Report, in particular the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The record reflects that the failure to preserve his clients' property is attributable to Barrett's lack of diligence in supervising an attorney, who is now deceased, and Barrett's negligence in maintaining his law firm's books and records. The record also reflects that Barrett's client has been reimbursed by the Delaware Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.
This Court concludes that the absence of mens rea in the Board's ultimate finding is significant in determining an appropriate sanction for Barrett's professional misconduct. We have determined that the interests of the public, the Bar, and Barrett would all be served if, as a result of Barrett's failure to preserve his clients' property, Barrett is suspended prospectively for a period of three years. Accord, ABA Standards for Improving Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 4.12.
Accordingly, IT IS ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Barrett be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of law, as a member of the Delaware Bar, for a period of three years, commencing October 1, 1993 and ending September 30, 1996.
Pursuant to Board on Professional Responsibility Rule 23(h), Barrett's reinstatement is expressly conditioned upon his complete compliance with all of the following terms:
(a) payment of all costs of these proceedings;
(b) certification of payment of full restitution to the Delaware Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which has compensated Barrett's clients for their loss; and
(c) certification by the Board of Bar Examiners that Barrett has successfully passed, anonymously, the regularly scheduled Delaware Bar Examination in its entirety.
This Opinion is to be disseminated by Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with Rules 3 and 14 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
[1]  The Board is an agency of this Court. Supr. Ct.R. 62; In re Kennedy, Del.Supr., 472 A.2d 1317, 1318-19 (1984).
[2]  The Court acknowledges the assistance provided by J. Jay Lazzeri, who was appointed to represent Barrett pro bono publico. Such representation was in the best tradition of the Delaware Bar.