Title: IMO a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 58, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 7, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER §   
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME  §  No. 58, 2022 
COURT OF DELAWARE 
 
§  Board Case No. 115327-B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   
MEGHAN M. KELLY,  
 
§   
 
Respondent.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 7, 2022 
Decided:  August 10, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.   
  
ORDER 
 
PER CURIAM: 
 
It appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This is an attorney disability proceeding.  On February 18, 2022, a panel 
of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed its report and 
recommendation (“the Report”) with this Court.  The Report recommended that the 
Court transfer the respondent, Meghan M. Kelly, Esquire, to disability inactive status 
under Rule 19(b) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 
(“DLRDP”).  Kelly filed objections to the Report, ODC responded to the objections, 
and Kelly filed a reply in support of her objections.1  For the reasons set forth below, 
the Court accepts the Report and transfers Kelly to disability inactive status.   
 
1 On the same day her reply was due, Kelly filed a motion to exceed the 5,000 word-count set by 
the Court on March 29, 2022.  Although the motion failed to identify the amount of additional 
words requested and the reply is almost double the 5,000 word-count, the Court grants the motion.  
Based on her misreading of Court of Chancery Rule 178B, which applies to guardianship matters 
 
 
2 
I. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
A. Kelly’s Litigation against then-President Trump 
(2) 
Kelly was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 2007.  After her admission 
to the Bar, she worked for several law firms.  Kelly has not been employed as a 
lawyer since 2016, but has repeatedly expressed a desire to rejoin a law firm that 
previously employed her. 
(3) 
On September 21, 2020, Kelly filed a nearly 500-paragraph complaint 
against then-President Donald Trump in the Court of Chancery.  Kelly alleged that 
Trump had violated the First Amendment by creating the illusion of government 
sponsored religion, burdening her free exercise of religion, and adopting Executive 
Order 13798.  She also filed a motion to expedite and a motion for a temporary 
restraining order.  Kelly subsequently filed two amended complaints.  On November 
2, 2020, a Master in Chancery issued a final report recommending dismissal of the 
complaint as legally frivolous under 10 Del. C. § 8803(c).  Kelly filed exceptions, 
which a Vice Chancellor overruled.2 
(4) 
On April 21, 2021, Kelly filed a notice of appeal in this Court.3  After 
Kelly filed her opening brief, this Court affirmed, sua sponte, the Court of 
 
not at issue here, Kelly also filed a motion to be excused from notarization and affirmation 
requirements in all Delaware courts.  That motion is denied.    
2 Kelly v. Trump, 2021 WL 1175423 (Del. Ch. Mar. 26, 2021). 
3 With the notice of appeal, Kelly included more than seventy documents she had filed in the 
Court of Chancery.  The Clerk’s Office advised Kelly that the documents would not be docketed 
as the Court of Chancery was responsible for transmitting the record to this Court under Supreme 
 
 
3 
Chancery’s judgment under Supreme Court Rule 25(c).4  Kelly filed a motion for 
reargument, which was denied.  On November 1, 2021, the United States Supreme 
Court denied Kelly’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 
B. The ODC and Board Proceedings 
(5) 
On August 23, 2021, ODC informed Kelly that the contents of her 
filings in the Trump action raised serious concerns regarding her mental capacity 
and fitness to practice law.  Based on these concerns, ODC asked Kelly to voluntarily 
submit to a mental health examination to determine her mental capacity and fitness 
to practice law.  ODC advised that if Kelly if did not undergo the examination 
scheduled for September 7, 2021, ODC would petition the Board to order such an 
examination.  In response, Kelly ordered ODC to stop contacting her and stated that 
she would not undergo a mental health evaluation because it was against her 
religious beliefs.   
(6) 
After obtaining the approval of the Preliminary Review Committee 
(“PRC”) on November 3, 2021, ODC filed a petition on November 5, 2021 to 
transfer Kelly to disability inactive status under DLRDP 19(c).  The petition alleged 
that the contents of Kelly’s filings in this Court and the Court of Chancery lacked 
focus and clarity, were objectively illogical, relied on non-legal sources, including 
 
Court Rule 9(b). 
4 Kelly v. Trump, 2021 WL 2836635 (Del. July 7, 2021). 
 
 
4 
the Bible, instead of appropriate legal authority, and reflected an apparent inability 
to make rational legal arguments.  ODC asked the Board to order Kelly to submit to 
a mental health examination, to hold a hearing to make findings, and to recommend 
that this Court transfer Kelly to disability inactive status.   
(7) 
On November 30, 2021, Kelly filed her answer, defenses, and 
objections to the petition.  The answer had numerous exhibits, including copies of 
books and articles she had drafted for impeachment of the president. 
(8) 
On December 10, 2021, the Administrative Assistant to the Board 
scheduled a hearing on ODC’s petition for January 13, 2022.  On December 13, 
2021, as requested by ODC and objected to by Kelly, this Court appointed counsel 
(“Counsel”) to represent Kelly under DLRDP 19(c), which provides that “[i]f the 
respondent is not represented by counsel, the Court shall appoint counsel for the 
respondent.”  The Court appointed Counsel at no cost to Kelly.  Kelly subsequently 
submitted letters and motions that, among other things, continued to object to the 
appointment of Counsel and asserted that she needed time to prepare discovery 
before the hearing.    
(9) 
After Kelly repeatedly objected to Counsel’s appointment, asserted that 
she wished to represent herself, shared Counsel’s advice with multiple individuals, 
and purported to fire Counsel, Counsel filed  a motion to remove counsel with the 
 
 
5 
Court.  On December 30, 2021, the Court granted the motion and permitted Kelly to 
represent herself.   
(10) On January 4, 2022 and January 10, 2022, Kelly filed objections to the 
proceeding.  She also sent requests for postponement of the hearing, sometimes 
based on her objections to the proceeding and need for additional time to prepare a 
defense and sometimes based on a physical illness she said she was suffering.  ODC 
was amenable to a one-week extension of the hearing based on Kelly’s 
representations that she was suffering a physical illness.     
(11) On January 11, 2022 Kelly filed emergency objections and an 
emergency motion to postpone the hearing with the Board and this Court.  That same 
day this Court denied the motion, ruling that the hearing panel chair decided 
scheduling matters and that the decision of the panel chair or panel could not be 
appealed before submission of the panel’s report and recommendation.  The Court 
advised Kelly that when the panel submitted its final report and recommendation, 
she would have the opportunity to object to the report as well as any prior rulings of 
the panel chair.  The panel chair granted Kelly’s motion in part, postponing the 
hearing until January 21, 2022.   
(12) Notwithstanding this Court’s January 11th order, Kelly appealed the 
postponement order to this Court.  The Court denied the motion for the reasons stated 
in its January 11th order, and advised that it would not rule on any further frivolous 
 
 
6 
motions or appeals Kelly filed before the panel submitted its final report and 
recommendation.  On January 13, 2022, ODC filed its opposition to Kelly’s January 
11th filings. 
(13) On January 15, 2022, Kelly filed a motion for emergency relief with 
the Board seeking additional time to obtain discovery and prepare a defense.  She 
asserted similar claims in emails sent on January 18th and January 19th.  The Board 
panel denied Kelly’s request for another continuance of the hearing date.   
(14) On January 21, 2022, the Board panel held the hearing via Zoom.  The 
Board panel heard Kelly’s testimony as well as the arguments of ODC and Kelly.  
At the end of the hearing, ODC asked the Board panel to order Kelly to undergo a 
mental health evaluation by a qualified mental health expert.  Kelly objected to a 
mental health evaluation as against her religious beliefs.  She also objected to the 
proceedings as violating her constitutional rights.   
(15) After the hearing, Kelly filed motions for a protective order against a 
mental health examination.  She also submitted corrections to the transcript of the 
January 21st hearing.  On February 17, 2022, the Board panel issued the Report.  In 
the Report, the Board panel recommended that Kelly be transferred to disability 
inactive status until she submits to a mental health evaluation conducted by a 
qualified expert who certifies her mental fitness for the practice of law. 
 
 
 
7 
C.  Kelly’s Appeal to this Court 
(16) On February 18, 2022, the Report was docketed in this Court.  The 
Court Clerk advised the parties that any objections to the report were due on March 
10, 2022.  On March 1, 2022, the Court granted Kelly’s motion for an extension of 
time to file objections to the Report.   On March 21, 2022, Kelly filed 136 pages of 
objections and a 24-page memorandum in support of her objections.  She also filed 
more than 2,000 pages of exhibits.  On April 21, 2022, ODC responded to the 
objections.  On June 7, 2022, after receiving a fifteen-day extension, Kelly filed her 
reply.   
II. 
DISCUSSION 
A. 
Standard of Review  
(17) This Court is not bound by the Board panel’s recommendation, and 
must independently review the Board panel’s findings of fact to determine whether 
the record contains substantial evidence to support those findings.5  We review the 
Board panel’s conclusions of law de novo.6   
(18) DLRDP 19 governs disability proceedings.  The relevant portions of 
that rule provide: 
Proceedings to Determine Incapacity.  Information relating to a 
lawyer’s physical or mental condition which adversely affects the 
lawyer’s ability to practice law shall be investigated by the ODC.  If 
 
5 In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482, 484 (Del. 2007). 
6 Id. 
 
 
8 
there are reasonable grounds to believe the interests of respondent’s 
clients or the public are endangered, such information shall be the 
subject of formal proceedings to determine whether the respondent 
shall be transferred to disability inactive status.  The procedures and 
hearings shall be conducted in the same manner as disciplinary 
proceedings.  The Board may take or direct whatever action it deems 
necessary or proper to determine whether the respondent is so 
incapacitated, including the examination of the respondent by qualified 
medical experts at the respondent’s expense.  If, after reviewing the 
recommendation of the Board and upon due consideration of the matter, 
the Court concludes that the respondent is incapacitated from 
continuing to practice law, it shall enter an order transferring the 
respondent to disability inactive status for an indefinite period and until 
further order of the Court.  Any pending disciplinary proceedings 
against the respondent shall be held in abeyance. 
 
The Board shall provide for such notice to the respondent of the 
proceedings in the matter as it deems proper and advisable.  If the 
respondent is not represented by counsel, the Court shall appoint 
counsel for the respondent.7 
 
The standard of proof for a transfer to disability inactive status is clear and 
convincing evidence.8 
B. 
Kelly is Incapacitated from Continuing to Practice Law 
(19) Having considered the Board panel’s recommendation, the parties’ 
arguments, and the record, we must find that Kelly is incapacitated from 
continuing to practice law and should be transferred to disability inactive status.  
 
7 DLRDP 19(c)   
8 Id. 15(c).   
 
 
9 
We reach this conclusion for somewhat different reasons than those articulated 
by the Board panel.9   
(20) As the Board panel  recognized, admission to the Delaware Bar 
requires attorneys to take an oath or affirmation to “support the Constitution of 
the United States and the Constitution of the State of Delaware” and to 
“behave…in the office an Attorney within the Courts” to the best of their 
“learning and ability and with all good fidelity as well to the Court as to the 
client.”10  Delaware attorneys must also comply with the Delaware Lawyers’ 
Rules of Professional Conduct (“DLRPC”), which require attorneys to represent 
clients competently,11 not undertake a representation if their physical or mental 
condition materially impairs their ability to represent a client,12 and refrain from 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of the justice.13  The legal 
“profession holds out to the public all its members in good standing as being 
competent, honest and devoted to their clients’ interests.”14   
 
9 The Board concluded that Kelly was “unable to separate her individual political and religious 
pursuits from her legal practice and from the duties she owes to the Court and the professional 
practice within this State as a licensed attorney.”  Report at 5.   
10 Del. Supr. R. 54.  See also 10 Del. C. § 1907 (requiring attorneys to take oath upon admission 
to the Delaware Bar). 
11 DLRPC 1.1 (“Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”). 
12 Id. 1.16(a)(2). 
13 Id. 8.4(d). 
14 In re Member of Bar, 257 A.2d 382, 383 (Del. 1969). 
 
 
10 
(21) The special responsibilities of attorneys are not limited to their 
representation of clients.  As set forth in the DLRPC Preamble, “[a] lawyer, as a 
member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the 
legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of 
justice.”15  “Lawyers play a vital role in preservation of society….fulfillment of 
this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship to our legal 
system.” 16   
(22) Many of Kelly’s submissions in the Trump action and these 
proceedings were confusing and unfocused, irrelevant to the issues at hand, 
demonstrated a lack of understanding of the role of courts, and were non-
compliant with court rules.  For example, in her motion for a page and word 
count extension under Supreme Court Rule 14(d) in the Trump action, Kelly 
failed to specify the number of additional pages she needed, but did include the 
following in a footnote: 
I did not know how bad the world was until I ran for office.  We do not 
have a free market. We have a manipulated marked, a slave market, 
where the government gives grants to entities, charities, not for profits, 
businesses and charities, entities without hearts (“beasts”), who try to 
get as much as they can for as little as they can to serve their life line, 
the bottom line, at the cost of exploiting consumers, the environment, 
workers and the world to create a manufactured market in exchange 
with bought loyalty, or the potential loyalty, to leaders who feed their 
greed. 
 
15 DLRPC Preamble [1].   
16 Id. [13].   
 
 
11 
 
Adam Smith’s theories, the alleged founder of capitalism, is not based 
on a free market. It is on a manipulated slave market, based on the mark 
of children of the devil, that humans will behave based on getting as 
much as they can for as little as they can, supply and demand, without 
regard, love, which is concern, for others unless it affects them…. 
  
In a temporary trial to Westlaw, I glimpsed at global agreements relating 
to the World Bank. I discovered we do not have a free market at a global 
level….The solution is just laws, just policies, and justice in the courts, 
not more money.  Justice in the courts legislating love, by concern, or 
requiring people and entities to care for others, or get corrected, will not 
only prevent harm here, but will guide people to the way of eternal life, 
should they remain in love.  Are the eyes of the courts darkened on 
money, merriment or material gain? Matthew 6:21-33.  Or do the courts 
look at people with love, protecting even those they are protecting, 
willing to break away from laws drafted by beasts without hearts, 
entities, who look at cold hard cash, play money to buy favors in their 
manipulated economy, to look at people with love, rendering true justice 
per Jesus. Matthew 23:23….Courts must not blindly follow laws that 
reward evil as good.  Courts must seek to decrease temptations to sin, 
protecting the people from the enemy, temptations to sin, by using the 
Constitutional limits to render unjust decrees, and policies 
unconstitutional lawlessness…. 
 
Creating a different economic model is not the solution, such as 
communism….Since laws, per se are written to serve the bottom line, 
at the cost of unconcern, absence of love for humanity, this Court can 
teach the entities that control the world, LLCs, organizations who buy 
leaders by tempting them to whored loyalty by donations and support 
in an unholy, bought or bartered for, not free, but whored union of 
government-private interest greed, not love, to adhere to the rule of law, 
not the lawless reign of lusts.  The courts and the law makers should 
teach love of humanity, not the mark of the devil, exploitation of 
humanity, to serve your own family or interest. This court must tame 
the beasts with constitutional limits, by taming those who are enslaved 
by the desires the beasts tempt lawmakers and the executive branch 
with, the government.  The law makers are blinded by their desire to 
keep their powerful seats. So is the executive branch.  Your seats are 
not gained by popularity, but by impartiality to enable you to check the 
 
 
12 
other two branches with the loving heavy hand of justice, guiding them 
to do right, never with revenge.  Instead with love and correction to 
prevent their condemnation in hell, and harm to victims of their sins 
here.  My hope is in the courts. Amos 5:15.  On a side note, I am sad 
dead men like Adam Smith and B.F. Skinner are misleading people to 
hell past their fleeting lives.  Their lies, accepted as truth, prevent many 
from being saved by truth of love.17 
 
(23) Not only did the footnote exceed the 1,200 word count for motions,18 it 
was irrelevant to Kelly’s request for an extension.  Attorneys and non-attorneys 
regularly file requests for page-extensions that specify the additional words or pages 
sought and that fall well-within the 1,200 word count or four-page limit for motions.  
Kelly was unable to do so.      
(24) With her answer to the disability petition, Kelly included a number of 
irrelevant exhibits, including almost two-hundred pages of The Fourth Industrial 
Revolution by Klaus Schwab, more than two-hundred pages of COVID-19: The 
Great Reset by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, and approximately sixty pages 
of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. 
Edward Griffin.19   She submitted these books again with her objections to the 
Report in this Court.20  The subject matter of these books has no relevance to the 
proceedings.   
 
17 Kelly v. Trump, No. 119, 2021 (Del. June 4, 2021), D.I. 28 at n.1. 
18 Del. Supr. Ct. 30(d). 
19 Meghan M. Kelly’s Answer, Defenses, and Objections, Exs. 16, 17, 18.   
20 Respondent Meghan Kelly’s Objections to Report and Recommendation, Ex. K.   
 
 
13 
(25) Kelly also sent ODC or copied ODC on strange emails.  On December 
21, 2021, for example, Kelly copied ODC and the Delaware U.S. Attorney on an 
email requesting a replacement Bar identification card from the Clerk of this 
Court.21  Kelly said she needed a replacement card because she had mailed her 
original card to her former employer in expectation of working again as a real estate 
attorney.22  On January 5, 2022, Kelly emailed ODC, the Board and Court 
Administrator, and the Court Clerk the following: 
I am feeling worse today.  I am losing my voice, very dehydrated, and 
am experiencing more unpleasant symptoms.  Per the message and 
pictures below, it appears I smell like death.  I have been getting 
attacked by buzzards and I am seeking the state’s help. 
 
 
Should anything happen to me, and I am unable to get back to you I 
apologize. 
 
Thank you for your understanding during this global pandemic and time 
of uncertainty.23 
 
With the email, Kelly forwarded photographs of birds outside her house and an email 
she had sent to various government officials pleading for help with the birds.24  In 
another January 5, 2022 email to ODC, Kelly expressed various views, including her 
belief that “people go to hell for fundraising and organized charity should they not 
 
21 ODC Hearing Exhibits Ex. 7, Email dated December 21, 2021 at 10:48 p.m.   
22 Id.  
23 Id. Ex. 8, Email dated January 5, 2022 at 8:40 a.m.  
24 Id. Ex. 8, Email dated January 5, 2022 at 8:12 a.m. (“They have been watching me for some 
time before they made attacks, swooping in on me, with quick escapes.  I almost didn’t make it.  
The claws were so close.”).  
 
 
14 
repent of such wickedness,” libel laws “protect serving what I believe is the beast 
spoken of in Revelations, business greed, at the cost of killing, stealing and 
destroying people,” and that “[t]here is a plan to harm humanity to control humanity 
by eliminating the governments’ power to govern, and the eventual elimination of 
our government.” 25 
(26) Kelly’s concerning behavior continued throughout the hearing.  As the 
Board panel discussed in its Report, Kelly struggled to log into the hearing and 
provided “confused and wandering” responses to questions concerning her computer 
problems.26  Kelly expressed suspicion that someone was hacking into her computer 
because “I had contacted so many people who are in power and I had sued the 
president.” 27   
(27) During her presentation, Kelly read aloud portions of her filings and 
recited her religious, political, and economic beliefs.28  Despite at least two requests 
from the Board panel, Kelly read aloud from her filings instead of explaining how 
the filings supported her position that she was competent to practice law.29  The 
excerpt below is typical of the unfocused and irrelevant nature of much of Kelly’s 
presentation: 
 
25 Id. Ex. 9, Email dated January 5, 2022 at 12:57 p.m.  
26 Report at 5.  See also Transcript of January 21, 2022 Hearing (hereinafter referred to as “Hearing 
Tr.”) at 13-25. 
27 Hearing Tr. 64. 
28 Id. at 99-173. 
29 Id. at 104, 144-45. 
 
 
15 
In this book you are going to see at the back of the book they talk about 
tracking people sort of like the green pass and the clear pass which were 
created before the pandemic.  When I had my computer before it was 
broken, I was able to look up things.  They also talked about biomedical 
experiments on people and things that they intended to do which 
weren’t to care for people, they were to control people and to care for 
profit. 
 
So, if you look at The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab it 
sort of outlines his plans and weird stuff like mind control.  I don’t 
believe our minds can be controlled, not by biology despite 
behaviorists’ theories, not by chemistry despite people saying 
chemicals can change your state of mind or your mind, but I believe we 
have free will, the ability to independently think, to care, to know, to 
love and the deception is that they had alluded to controlling the mind, 
battlefield of the mind, is to deceive people to think that they don’t have 
a choice, that they can’t think independently to choose to care, to know, 
to love one another because I believe the command by God is to love 
God foremost and love one another as yourself. 30    
 
(28) There was substantial evidence to support the Board panel’s factual 
findings.  Kelly’s inability to make to make cogent legal arguments, present relevant 
evidence, or identify relevant legal authority is painfully clear from the record.  
Given the record and Kelly’s repeated objections to a mental health exam, the Board 
panel’s election not to order Kelly to undergo a mental health exam, as permitted by 
Rule 19(c) and requested by ODC, was reasonable.  It is plain from Kelly’s conduct 
that a physical or mental condition is adversely impacting her ability to practice law.  
Although Kelly is not presently representing any clients, she has repeatedly 
 
30 Id. at 122-23; List of Corrections to Hearing dated January 21, 2022. 
 
 
16 
expressed a desire to rejoin a former law firm employer.31  Kelly’s lack of 
competence to practice law endangers prospective clients, the public, and the orderly 
administration of justice.  ODC satisfied its burden of demonstrating by clear and 
convincing evidence that Kelly is incapacitated from continuing to practice law and 
should be transferred to disability inactive status.   
C. 
Kelly’s Objections Lack Merit 
(29) Kelly’s objections to the Report may be summarized as follows: (i) this 
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings; (ii) these proceedings 
violate her right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (iii) these proceedings violate her 
right to free exercise of religion and free speech under the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.  Kelly’s objections are without merit. 
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction 
(30) Contrary to Kelly’s contentions, the disability proceeding was not 
subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  This Court “alone, has 
sole and exclusive responsibility over all matters affecting governance of the Bar.”32  
 
31 See, e.g., supra n.22; Hearing Tr. 73-83. 
32 In re Appeal of Infotechnology, Inc., 582 A.2d 215, 216–17 (Del. 1990).  See also In re Mekler, 
669 A.2d 655, 664 (Del. 1995) (“It is the exclusive responsibility of this Court to supervise, 
regulate and discipline members of the Delaware Bar.”); In re Green, 464 A.2d 881, 885 (Del. 
1983) (describing this authority as “based on the concept, taken from England, that the courts 
possess the exclusive right to govern the practice of law”); Member of the Bar, 257 A.2d at 383 
(“The authority, as well as the duty, to establish the Bar and to maintain its standards exists 
inherently in this Court as the highest court of the State, independent of any statutory grant of 
 
 
17 
This authority is necessary “for the proper administration of justice, which can be 
achieved only if the procedures and practices of the courts are fair and reasonable, 
and the officers of the court, the lawyers, are competent and ethical.” 33   Under its 
authority, the Court maintains “appropriate standards of conduct for all lawyers 
subject 
to 
its 
jurisdiction” 
and 
“dispose[s] 
of 
individual 
cases 
of 
lawyer…disability.”34   
(31) Kelly contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based 
primarily35 on her mistaken and unfounded belief that the Chief Justice caused ODC, 
the Delaware Lawyer Assistance Program (“DE-LAP”), and a Court of Common 
Pleas judge to “threaten,” “harass,” and “attack[]” her after she requested that this 
Court waive annual registration fees for Delaware attorneys in early 2021.36   None 
of the panel members referred Kelly to ODC or DE-LAP or communicated with the 
Court of Common Pleas Judge about Kelly.  To the extent Kelly suggests this Court 
loses subject matter jurisdiction over disability or disciplinary proceedings any time 
a member refers an attorney to ODC or DE-LAP, this is contrary to the Court’s 
 
authority, although there does exist in our Code such authority.”).   
33 Member of the Bar, 257 A.2d at 383.   
34 DLRDP 1(a).   
35 She also seems to argue that the Court’s violation of her constitutional rights deprived it of 
subject matter jurisdiction.  We address the constitutional claims later in this order. 
36 Memorandum of Law ¶¶  6-14.  Kelly also contends that these entities and individuals, among 
others, interfered with her case against Trump, and pressured her to drop the case.  As set forth in 
the decisions of this Court and the Court of Chancery, the dismissal of Kelly’s case resulted from 
her own pleading deficiencies, not the interference of third parties.  Kelly, 2021 WL 2836635; 
Kelly, 2021 WL 1175423.   
 
 
18 
exclusive jurisdiction over such matters37 and the duties of judicial officers under 
the Delaware Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct.38 
2. There were no violations of Kelly’s right to due process or equal 
protection 
 
(32) Kelly’s claims of due process and equal protection violations are 
without merit.  Proceedings to determine attorney incapacity, which are conducted 
in the same manner as disciplinary proceedings,39 contain extensive procedural due 
process protections for respondents.40  These protections include: (i) notice of 
ODC’s intent to present a petition to transfer to disability inactive status to the PRC 
and the opportunity to submit a written statement for the PRC to consider;41 (ii) the 
PRC’s determination of whether there is probable cause to support the petition;42 
(iii) if the petition is approved by the PRC, the opportunity to file an answer to the 
petition;43 (iv) if the respondent is unrepresented, the appointment of counsel;44 (v) 
 
37 See supra ¶ 30.     
38 Del. Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct R. 2.14 (“A judge, having a reasonable belief that the 
performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, 
emotional, or physical condition, should take appropriate action, which may include a confidential 
referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.”); Id. 2.15 (“A judge should initiate appropriate 
action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of 
unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer.”). 
39 DLRDP 19(c). 
40 Abbott v. State Public Integrity Comm’n, 2019 WL 937184, at *5 (Del. Feb. 25, 2019) 
(recognizing that the “process for attorney discipline has extensive procedural due process 
protections” which allow “the [respondent] ability to appeal any determination of the [Board] to 
this Court’). 
41 DLRDP 9(b)(1). 
42 Id. 9(b)(3). 
43 Id. 9(d). 
44 Id. 19(c). 
 
 
19 
the ability to compel by subpoena the production of documents or witness 
testimony;45 (vi) a Board hearing that is recorded;46 and (vii) the opportunity to 
submit objections to the Board’s report and review of the Board’s report and 
recommendation by this Court.47  
(33) Kelly contends that she received untimely notice of the hearing date 
and was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself.  This argument is without merit.  
As to the hearing notice, the Board Administrative Assistant issued a notice on 
December 10, 2021 scheduling the hearing for January 13, 2022.  Kelly says she did 
not receive the notice by mail until December 24, 2021, less than the twenty days 
before the original hearing date, but notice is calculated from the date of mailing.48  
In addition, Kelly’s filings reflect that she was aware of the hearing date by 
December 17, 2021.49  Kelly did not receive insufficient notice of the hearing.   
(34) As to Kelly’s claims that she had insufficient time to conduct research, 
perform discovery, and subpoena witnesses to support her defense, ODC filed the 
petition to transfer her to disability inactive status on November 5, 2021.  The 
 
45 Id. 12(b)(2). 
46 Id. 9(d)(4). 
47 Id. 9(e); 19(c). 
48 Id. 11(b) (stating that unless otherwise provided service should be made in accordance with the 
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure); Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(b).  In disability matters, the 
Board provides notice to the respondent in the manner it deems proper and advisable.  DLRDP 
19(c).   
49 December 18, 2021 Letter Regarding, Respondent is entitled to Discovery/Reconsider on 
Counsel.   
 
 
20 
hearing was initially scheduled for January 13, 2022 and postponed, at Kelly’s 
request, until January 21, 2022.  During that time, Kelly prepared and filed numerous 
motions in this proceeding.  She had more than sufficient time to prepare a defense.  
Kelly repeatedly advised of her need for discovery, but failed to seek any discovery.  
Under DLRDP 12(a)(2), a respondent may request that the Court Clerk prepare 
subpoenas to compel the testimony of witnesses or the production of pertinent 
documents.  Kelly never did so.   
(35) Kelly also challenges the Court’s appointment of counsel to represent 
her.  Procedural due process claims involving counsel usually involve the absence 
or failure to appoint counsel, not the appointment of counsel.50  To the extent Kelly’s 
objections to the appointment of counsel constitute a claim that this appointment 
violated her right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment, this argument 
is without merit.  The Court appointed counsel to represent Kelly in accordance with 
DLRDP 19(c), which provides that the Court “shall appoint counsel” for a 
respondent who is not represented by counsel in a disability proceeding.  After 
Kelly’s vigorous objections and Counsel moved to withdraw, the Court granted the 
motion to withdraw and allowed Kelly to represent herself.  Thus, even assuming 
 
50 See, e.g., Watson v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 813 A.2d 1101, 1112-13 (Del. 2002) (finding violation 
of procedural due process where attorney was not appointed to represent a parent at the inception 
of dependency and neglect proceedings). 
 
 
21 
Kelly had a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in the disability 
proceeding, she was not deprived of that right.   
(36) As to her substantive due process claim, Kelly must show she is being 
deprived of a property interest that is fundamental under the United States 
Constitution and that the deprivation is arbitrary, irrational, tainted by improper 
motive, or through conduct that shocks conscience.51  Even assuming Kelly could 
show deprivation of a fundamental right here,52 she has not shown that her placement 
on disability inactive status is arbitrary, irrational, tainted by improper motive, or 
through conduct that shocks the conscience.  She offers nothing to suggest that the 
actions of ODC or the Board were motivated by anything other than reasonable 
concern in response to Kelly’s troubling conduct.   
(37) Similarly, Kelly’s vindictive prosecution claim is without merit.  A 
vindictive prosecution arises from “specific animus or ill will.”53  Kelly has not 
shown that ODC’s petition resulted from any animus or ill will toward her.   
 
51 Nicholas v. Pa. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2000).  
52 C.f. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of State of N.M., 353 U.S. 232, 239 (1957) (holding 
that a state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law for reasons that violate the Due Process 
or Equal Protection clauses, but “can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral 
character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar” as long as the 
qualifications “have a rational connection with the applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice law”); 
Edelstein v. Wilentz, 812 F.2d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 1987) (“We have previously held that the right to 
practice law is not a fundamental right for purposes of due process or equal protection analysis.”). 
53 State v. Wharton, 1991 WL 138417, at *10-11 (Del. Super. Ct. June 3, 1991). 
 
 
22 
(38) The basis of Kelly’s claim of an equal protection violation is unclear.  
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within 
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”54  To the extent Kelly argues that 
her political or religious beliefs led to selective prosecution by ODC, this implicates 
equal protection.55  To state a claim of selective prosecution, Kelly must show ODC 
had: (i) a policy to prosecute that had a discriminatory effect; and (ii) was motivated 
by a discriminatory purpose.56  In arguing that ODC prosecuted her for her political 
or religious beliefs, Kelly ignores that ODC’s petition was based on her unfocused 
and illogical filings, reliance on non-legal sources, including (but not limited to) the 
Bible, and inability to make rational legal arguments.  Kelly has not shown that ODC 
had a policy with discriminatory effect or was motivated by a discriminatory 
purpose.   
3. There were no violations of Kelly’s First Amendment rights 
(39) The First Amendment protects an individual’s free speech and free 
exercise of religion.57  A lawyer’s right to free speech is not unlimited.58  Kelly 
 
54 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 
55 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 61 n.13 (Del. 1988).   
56 Smalls v. State, 2015 WL 71631, at *4 (Del. Jan. 5, 2015). 
57 U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances.”).  The First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). 
58 In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930, 938 (Del. 2000) (holding “there are ethical obligations imposed 
upon a Delaware lawyer, which qualify the lawyer’s constitutional right to freedom of speech”) 
(citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)).  See also Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 304 
 
 
23 
contends that this proceeding violated her right to free speech and free exercise of 
religion by punishing her for expressing religious and political views that the State 
finds repugnant.  She is mistaken.   
(40) It is the unfocused, irrelevant, and incoherent nature of many of Kelly’s 
submissions that led to this proceeding, not her religious or political beliefs as she 
contends.59  Kelly’s references to her religious and political views throughout her 
submissions do not shield her from scrutiny concerning her competency to practice 
law.  States have an “an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the 
processional conduct of the attorneys” they license.60  In the exercise of this Court’s 
exclusive responsibility to supervise and regulate Bar members, we have determined 
that  a physical or mental condition has adversely affected Kelly’s ability to practice 
law, Kelly is incapacitated from continuing to practice law, and Kelly must be 
transferred to disability inactive status.        
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 
a.  Kelly is immediately transferred to disability inactive status under 
DLRDP 19 until such time that she demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 
that any disabilities have been removed. 
 
(describing the “freedom to believe” as “absolute,” but recognizing that “[c]onduct remains subject 
to regulation for the protection of society”).  
59 See supra ¶¶ 22-26.   
60 Middlesex Cty. Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 434 (1982). 
 
 
24 
b. As set forth in DLRDP 19(e), this Court may take or direct any action 
upon the filing of a petition for transfer to active status that it deems necessary or 
proper, including a remand to the Board for a hearing and recommendation to 
determine whether the disability has been removed, and may order an examination 
by qualified medical experts.  
c. Kelly shall not practice law in this State. 
d. This Order shall be made public.