Opinion ID: 2194380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: board's factual findings [12]

Text: The Board's findings of fact and recommendations are as follows: (1) Count I of the Amended Petition-Giving Legal Advice/Impugning the Integrity and Validity of Court Orders Count I of the Amended Petition avers that Respondent was in contempt of the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice to his clients in his letter of November 13, 2006. ODC further claims that this letter impugned the integrity and validity of Orders issued by the Delaware Supreme Court and the New Castle County Court of Chancery. [13] Respondent denies that his letter contains legal advice or that it impugned the Supreme Court's integrity. It cannot be gainsaid that Respondent's letter was ill-advised, misleading and spiteful. Despite its offensive tone and distasteful wording, however, the Board did not find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's letter impugns the Supreme Court's integrity or the validity of the Cease and Desist Order. Although Respondent's letter includes several passages that one could construe as rendering legal advice, there was no testimony presented by ODC that any of Respondent's clients construed the letter as giving legal advice or that they relied on the letter for this purpose. Absent such testimony, the Board does not find clear and convincing evidence that Respondent rendered legal advice in his letter. For these reasons, the Board finds that ODC fails to meet its burden of proof with respect to Count I of the Amended Petition. (2) Counts II, III, IV and Count VI of the Amended Petition-Giving Legal Advice on Estate Law/ Drafting of Wills/Trusts/Powers of Attorney/Healthcare Directives/Deeds Count II of the Amended Petition alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills for Easter Burch (Burch). Count III alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills for Yolanda and William Welsh (Welsh). Count IV alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills for Bruce Abbott (Abbott). Count VI alleges that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to estate law and drafting legal documents for use in the Register of Wills for Vivienne Titus (Titus). Respondent admits meeting with those named individuals to discuss estate planning but denies that he drafted any legal documents or that he rendered any legal advice. As explained below, Respondent's routine business practice was essentially the same each time he met with clients to discuss estate planning. As such, unless otherwise noted, the Board's findings of fact are identical for Counts II, III, IV and VI of the Amended Petition. Respondent met with Burch and her granddaughter, Susan Cooper (Cooper), on November 3, 2006 to discuss estate planning. This consultation was typical of Respondent's meetings with other estate planning clients. For example, Cooper took Burch to Respondent to draft a will. Cooper, her grandmother, Respondent and a tall young lady from Respondent's office were the only people present during the initial meeting. No Delaware lawyer was present. After interviewing Burch and taking detailed notes during this meeting, Respondent provided his notes to Leonard Kingsley (Kingsley) an attorney admitted in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Kingsley, who is not admitted to practice law in Delaware, then drafted a power of attorney, will and irrevocable trust for Burch as directed by Respondent. Respondent employed largely the same procedure regarding his estate planning work for Welsh, Abbott and Titus. Kingsley maintains an office in West Chester, Pennsylvania. As part of his practice, he claimed to help Respondent with his legal problems, including counseling Respondent in terms of how to limit the scope of inquiries from various branches of the Delaware government. Respondent pays Kingsley $8,000.00 per month to draft legal documents based on the notes Respondent generates as a result of his initial meetings with clients. Respondent maintains a master file of form documents for wills, trusts, healthcare directive and powers of attorney and Kingsley routinely used these forms to draft the legal documents as directed by Respondent. When Kingsley drafted the documents, he did so either at his home in Wilmington, Delaware or at his West Chester, Pennsylvania office. The Board notes with interest that prior to November of 2006, Kingsley was actually an employee of Respondent's accounting firm, but ostensibly terminated his employment for fear of prosecution by ODC. When Kingsley was Respondent's employee, he performed these same services for Respondent. In addition to drafting estate planning documents, Kingsley also drafted deeds transferring real estate for Respondent's clients. Kingsley always received instructions from Respondent as to what documents to draft. After Kingsley prepared the legal documents, he returned them electronically to Respondent's office. With only two exceptions, Kingsley never met with Respondent's clients. [14] The documents were then forwarded to Thomas McCracken, Esquire (McCracken), a member of the Delaware Bar. Kingsley never met with McCracken to discuss the documents. Respondent and McCracken had a business agreement that was memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding. Respondent testified that McCracken would draft documents, meet with clients and answer questions about the documents. But, Respondent's testimony on this point was directly contradicted by Kingsley and McCracken, both of whom testified that Kingsley, not McCracken, drafted the legal documents based on Respondent's instructions. The Board specifically found that Kingsley did the drafting, not McCracken. McCracken received the draft legal documents electronically from Respondent but, unlike Kingsley, he did not receive Respondent's personal notes. McCracken played no role in determining what estate planning documents were prepared for Respondent's clients. Indeed, it is uncontroverted that none of Respondent's clients ever met McCracken before executing their legal documents. Their first introduction to their own lawyer was only moments before these documents were signed. The Board found that Respondent's clients were intentionally misled about McCracken's role. When Respondent and McCracken met with clients to execute legal documents, the clients were presented a letter prepared by Respondent, but printed on McCracken's letterhead and signed by McCracken. This letter falsely informed the clients that McCracken prepared the legal documents to carry out the client's wishes. It also falsely stated that Respondent and [McCracken] have decided that these documents will effectively carry out your intent from the estate and tax planning consultation you had with [Respondent]. Contrary to these representations, McCracken did not prepare the legal documents, nor did he form or express any opinions about whether the legal documents effectively carried out the client's intent. Similarly, ODC questioned McCracken about deeds that were prepared for Respondent's clients. McCracken admits he did not prepare the deeds but did review them. The deeds falsely state they were prepared by McCracken. The Board finds that the deeds were prepared by Kingsley at Respondent's direction. Welsh's consultation with Respondent was strikingly similar. Welsh contacted Respondent because he saw his advertisement in the `Lawyers' section in the yellow pages. On November 6, 2006, at the initial meeting with Respondent, Welsh's wife was not present, nor was McCracken. Welsh and his wife returned to Respondent's office approximately one week later. McCracken was present but said absolutely nothing when Welsh and his wife executed the legal documents. All questions posed by Welsh were answered by Respondent. After executing the documents, Welsh had concerns about the documents he executed, so he telephoned McCracken. [15] McCracken told Welsh that he would need to set up a meeting with Respondent to discuss his concerns. Thereafter, Welsh testified he met with Respondent and another lawyer, some guy from around the Philadelphia area. He looked to me, he might have been Asian of some kind. The Board finds that Welsh is referring to Kingsley. The Board heard similar testimony from Titus' daughter, Eileen Wolfe (Wolfe), who had accompanied her mother to meet with Respondent on October 23, 2006. During this meeting, Respondent reviewed a will previously prepared by an attorney and rendered legal advice that the will had to be redone, that there are things missing and it wasn't written correctly. Wolfe, her sister, Titus, Respondent, and one of his secretaries were the only people present during the initial meeting. Again, McCracken was not present. The only time Titus met McCracken was the day the legal documents were executed, November 13, 2006. That day, Respondent went through the legal documents page by page explaining them to Titus. Thereafter, Titus signed the documents and McCracken was silent during this meeting. McCracken's testimony corroborates Respondent's business practice. McCracken was admitted to the Delaware bar in April of 2003. He met Respondent when he responded to his advertisement in a local newspaper seeking a licensed Delaware attorney to assist him on legal matters on a part-time basis. McCracken explained that clients would make an appointment with Respondent's office. Respondent then emailed documents to McCracken for review. If McCracken had corrections, he would email the corrections. He never made any substantive changes to any of the legal documents. Rather, his only changes were grammatical, spelling or punctuation. If McCracken did not have corrections, he would notify Respondent's office. He also would later report to Respondent's office where the documents were executed by Respondent's clients. McCracken described his role as merely ensuring that the documents complied with Delaware law. He did not exercise any independent judgment, give any legal advice to the clients or make any effort to determine whether the documents were consonant with the client's wants or needs. Indeed, as a Delaware lawyer, McCracken did not exercise any supervisory control or capacity over Respondent or Kingsley. In terms of billing, invoices were prepared by Respondent's office and a charge was placed on Respondent's bill for the services purportedly rendered by McCracken. [16] Although not directly implicated in ODC's Amended Petition, Bernard J. Bialecki, Esquire's (Bialecki) testimony was akin to McCracken's. Bialecki is a Delaware lawyer who also met Respondent in response to his newspaper advertisement. Bialecki entered into a similar facilitating business arrangement with Respondent whereby he would review legal documents to determine compliance with Delaware law. Bialecki also received legal documents electronically although he received them directly from Kingsley. Unlike McCracken, Bialecki claims he, on occasion, substantively discussed the documents with Kingsley but did not receive Respondent's notes. Consequently, Bialecki's only knowledge of the client's wishes was what Kingsley communicated to him. Bialecki also never met with any of Respondent's clients before reviewing the documents. When the documents were executed, Bialecki was present but it was Respondent who reviewed the documents with his clients. Bialecki never explained any of the documents to the clients. Bialecki was paid directly by Respondent and his fees were also collected in the same fashion as part of Respondent's billing. In summary, the evidence relating to ODC's allegations in Counts II, III, IV, and VI is largely uncontested. In the Admissions, Respondent voluntarily, and with the benefit of counsel, agreed that the drafting of wills and trusts by a non-lawyer, not authorized to practice law by the Delaware Supreme Court, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent also admitted that he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by drafting wills and trusts and he agreed that he would not draft wills and trusts and other legal documents. The Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's conduct violated both the substance and spirit of the Admissions and the Cease and Desist Order. Respondent's business arrangements with Kingsley and McCracken constitute a transparent, nefarious attempt to circumvent the Cease and Desist Order and continue with business as usual. The Board found that Respondent interviewed Burch, Welsh, Abbott and Titus and rendered legal advice to each regarding what legal documents they needed as part of their estate planning. Instead of drafting the legal documents himself, Respondent directed Kingsley to draft them for him. While Respondent did not himself perform the drafting, this isolated fact is no defense, because Kingsley, a non-Delaware lawyer, did the drafting at Respondent's direction, using Respondent's forms, for Respondent's pecuniary benefit. Respondent cannot avoid the terms of the Admissions and the Cease and Desist Order by concocting a contemptuous scheme whereby he directs a non-Delaware lawyer, as his agent, to draft legal documents in contravention of a Supreme Court Order. The Board further found that after the documents were prepared, Respondent met with the clients to explain the documents, thereby rendering legal advice on matters relating to Delaware estate law. The only difference in Respondent's post-Admissions conduct is that he now had a Delaware lawyer present to witness the execution of the legal documents. A Delaware lawyer's mere presence does not empower Respondent to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by the Admissions. This is particularly true considering the false representations made to Respondent's clients regarding McCracken's role in their estate planning. McCracken abdicated his ethical obligations as an advocate and directly contributed to Respondent's chicanery, thereby arming Respondent with a tepid scheme to avoid the Cease and Desist Order. As such, the Board found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by rendering legal advice relating to Delaware estate law and by drafting legal documents as alleged in Counts II, III, IV and VI. (3) Counts V, VII, VIII, IX and X-Giving Legal Advice/Acting in A Representative Capacity in the Register of Wills Count V alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills on behalf of Thomas McElhone (McElhone). Count VII alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills on behalf of D'June Hunt (Hunt). Count VIII alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills on behalf of Ann R. Fox (Fox). Count IX alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills on behalf of Christine T. Dillow (Dillow). Count X alleges Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order by giving legal advice and acting in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills on behalf of Betty Treml (Treml). With respect to these allegations, Respondent denies rendering legal advice as alleged, but admits preparing and mailing accountings to the Register of Wills as agent for McElhone, Hunt, Fox, Dillow, and Treml. In essence, Respondent denies he was acting in a representative capacity while assisting the aforementioned personal representatives in the Register of Wills. In particular, Respondent argues that the Admissions merely prohibit him from serving as personal representative in the Register of Wills. The Board does not find this argument persuasive. In ¶ 12 of the Admissions, Respondent specifically agreed that he would not act in a representative capacity in the Register of Wills, give legal advice on matters relating to Delaware estate law, or draft legal documents for use in the Register of Wills. Contrary to Respondent's position, the Board found that this language is not limited to merely prohibiting him from acting as a personal representative. That language is much broader, and proscribes Respondent from acting in any representative capacity. For each estate, the Board found that Respondent prepared and filed documents with the Register of Wills in violation of the Admissions. Moreover, Respondent prepared agent authorizations whereby his clients, as personal representatives of estates, appointed him as their agent before the Register of Wills. It is beyond peradventure that if Respondent was acting as an agent, a fortiori, he was acting in a representative capacity in violation of the Cease and Desist Order. It defies logic for Respondent to suggest otherwise merely because he labeled himself an agent as opposed to some different title. Based on the testimony and the documents admitted pertaining to these estates, the Board also found that Respondent rendered legal advice to the personal representatives in connection with the preparation and filing of these documents with the Register of Wills. For example, in his billing statement regarding the Estate of Anna Jane Floyd, Respondent's entries clearly state that he advised his client that she did not need an attorney when in fact a legal question arose regarding a real estate settlement. Instead, Respondent himself rendered legal advice to the client on what steps he believed the personal representative needed to take to clear up a title issue. Respondent claims that the preparation of an inventory or final accounting for filing in the Register of Wills is essentially accounting work. Therefore, Respondent claims, he filed no legal documents. The Board disagreed. To support his claim, Respondent presented testimony from Geoff Langdon (Langdon), the managing partner of Cover & Rossiter, a Public Accounting Firm in Wilmington, Delaware. Ironically, the Board found Langdon's testimony supportive of ODC's position. In fact, Langdon's testimony established that Respondent's business practices in these matters went well beyond normally accepted accounting practices. Although Langdon testified that the preparation of an inventory and final accounting is largely what accountants do, he also conceded that in his twenty years of accounting, he could think of only one instance where an accountant in his office actually filed the inventory and final accounting with the Register of Wills. Instead, Langdon testified, such filings are normally done by Delaware attorneys. [17] The Board finds Langdon's testimony an accurate representation of accepted accounting practices in Delaware. Consequently, by routinely preparing and filing inventories and final accountings, Respondent's conduct far exceeded the scope of accepted accounting practices in Delaware. More pointedly, regardless of what the practice is in Delaware, Respondent violated his agreement that he would not draft legal documents for filing with the Register of Wills. He further violated his agreement that he would not act in a representative capacity or give legal advice pertaining to probate matters. The Board found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Order as alleged in Counts V, VII, VIII, IX and X.