Title: Matter of Solomon
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF A  
 
§  
MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE 
§   No. 1, 2005 
SUPREME COURT OF THE  
§   Board Case No. 10, 2004 
STATE OF DELAWARE: 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
FRANCINE R. SOLOMON, 
 
§    
ESQUIRE,  
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  February 22, 2005 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  March 1, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on 
Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court.  Suspension for Six-
months. 
 
 
Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, Fox Rothschild, LLC, for Francine R. 
Solomon, Esquire. 
 
 
Andrea L. Rocanelli, Esquire, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
Wilmington, Delaware. 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM: 
 
2
 
The matter before this Court is a disciplinary proceeding.  The Board 
of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has filed a Final Report (“Report”) 
with regard to charges of professional misconduct.  The Respondent is 
Francine R. Solomon (“Solomon”).  That Report is attached hereto and 
incorporated herein by reference.   
The Board recommended that the “Respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of six (6) months, followed by a three (3) year 
public probation and permanent practice restrictions that would prohibit solo 
practice, any future responsibility for financial record keeping, and 
comparable practice limitations to those set forth in In Re Solomon, Del. 
Supr., 745 A.2d 874 (1999).”  The Respondent filed an Objection to the 
Board’s Final Report and recommendation.  The Respondent’s Objection 
concluded with the following summary:   
In summary, Respondent Solomon admits that she committed a 
technical violation of Rule 1.1 by misciting in her Motion to 
Enlarge Family Court Rule 45(b) instead of Family Court Rule 
6(b) for which, at most, Respondent Solomon submits she 
should have received a private admonition.  Alternatively, 
Respondent Solomon respectfully submits that the Board’s 
recommendation that she be suspended for the practice of law 
for a period of six months, followed by a three-year public 
probation and permanent restrictions are disproportionate to any 
violation of the Rules and that Respondent Solomon receive a 
public reprimand so that this Court may proceed to consider her 
application to retire from the Delaware Bar. 
 
 
3
 
During the pendency of this disciplinary proceeding, the Respondent 
filed an application with this Court for a Certificate of Retirement that 
erroneously stated there were no disciplinary matters pending.  Following 
this Court’s issuance of a Rule to Show Cause why her Certificate of 
Retirement should not be denied, the Respondent admitted this matter was 
pending and attributed its omission to excusable neglect.  This Court decided 
to take no action on the Respondent’s Certificate of Retirement until this 
disciplinary matter was concluded.   
 
The Court, having reviewed and considered the parties’ submissions, 
concludes that the Report of the Board on Professional Responsibility filed 
on January 3, 2005, should be APPROVED.  The Court hereby orders that 
the Respondent is suspended from practicing law in Delaware for a period of 
six months from the date of this opinion.  When the six-month term of 
suspension is over, the Respondent’s suspension will continue to be in effect 
until, at the Respondent’s request, this Court has entered an order 
establishing the permanent practice restrictions contemplated by the Report.  
Alternatively, when the six-month period of suspension is over, the 
Respondent can ask this Court to reconsider her application for a Certificate 
of Retirement.   
 
4
 
Within ten days after the date of this opinion, the Respondent is 
ordered to comply with Rule 23(a) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of 
Disciplinary Procedure.  Immediately thereafter, the Respondent shall file an 
affidavit with this Court indicating her compliance with Rule 23(a), as 
required by Rule 23(b).  The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is directed to 
publicly disseminate information relating to this disciplinary proceeding, as 
required by Rule 14.  This matter is closed.   
 
5
No. 1, 2005 
 
Andrea L. Rocanelli, Esquire 
Office of Disciplinary Counsel 
820 N. French Street 
Wilmington, DE   19801 
 
Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire 
Fox Rothschild, LLC 
P.O. Box 2323 
Wilmington, DE   19899-2323