Opinion ID: 2182717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disbarment Only Appropriate Sanction

Text: This Court is vested with the inherent and exclusive authority for disciplining members of its Bar. [1] In the past, this Court has cited with approval, the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. [2] The relevant American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions is 5.11. That section provides: 5.11 Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation: 5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or the safe, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. The Delaware Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct are promulgated by this Court to set forth standards of ethical conduct to which all Delaware lawyers must conform to continue to practice law. [3] The lawyer discipline system was not designed to be either punitive or penal in nature. [4] When sanctions are imposed, this Court is guided by its prior precedents. [5] In deciding upon the appropriate sanction, this Court considers the multifaceted but congruent purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. [6] The record reflects a pattern of unethical conduct by Funk that demonstrates a disgraceful history of complete disregard for his responsibilities as an officer of this Court imbued with public trust in the proper administration of justice. [7] In Funk's case, the only appropriate sanction is disbarment. [8]