Opinion ID: 1487866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Martha Miller

Text: Martha Miller is a part-time paralegal at the Respondent's law firm. She was hired in August 2003 to work with lawyers David C. Gagne, Esquire and F. Edmund Lynch, Esquire. The first time that Miller went into the Respondent's office, she overheard a conversation that he was having with a female client via speaker phone. The client told the Respondent, He rubs me the wrong way to which the Respondent replied, I wouldn't mind if you did that to me. He then repeated his statement while looking directly at Miller and smiling as he said it. After she had been working at the firm for a short period of time, the Respondent asked her to work on a major case to prepare it for trial. The Respondent made Miller accompany him to the trial. The Respondent's work demands on Miller increased and he put increasing pressure on her. It eventually reached the point that it was difficult for her to continue working for Gagne and Lynch. As the work demands from the Respondent became more intense, his conduct became more aggressive. He started with hugs that he knew made her uncomfortable. The physical contact also included holding her forcefully for periods of time. On at least one occasion, the Respondent kissed her on the mouth. Miller became more and more uncomfortable. She gained 20 pounds and started hiding from the Respondent. When Miller started to avoid the Respondent and hide from him, he sought her out and demanded that she come to his office. On several occasions, he said to her, Who signs your paycheck? When I call, you come. I don't want to have this conversation again. He also told Miller on numerous occasions, You work for me and that she was to stop whatever it was that she was doing when he called for her and come NOW to my office. On one of the days when Miller hid from the Respondent so that she did not have to face him, the Respondent found her and said, Don't you hide from me. You stand here. I told you to organize the file NOW. The Respondent continued to remind Miller that she worked for him by making such statements as, Who signs your paychecks? You don't work for David, you don't work for Ed  you work for ME. Whenever the Respondent would call her to his office, Miller would be sure to bring a file so that she could hold it against herself as a barrier. She also tried to stand at his office door without going in. Miller hid in the bathroom many times, crying and shaking. Eventually, Miller told Gagne that she was uncomfortable working with the Respondent but did not tell him why. Miller told the office manager that she did not want to work for the Respondent. Eventually, Miller told Gagne about the kiss. Rule 8.4(b) provides that [a] lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 11 Del. C. '763(2) states that [a] person is guilty of sexual harassment when: ... (2) [t]he person suggests, solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to induce another person to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual penetration with the actor, knowing that the actor is thereby likely to cause annoyance, offense or alarm to that person. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. '763, sexual harassment is an unclassified misdemeanor in the State of Delaware. 11 Del. C. '601(a)(1) states that [a] person is guilty of offensive touching when the person: (1) [i]ntentionally touches another person either with a member of his or her body or with any instrument, knowing that the person is thereby likely to cause offense or alarm to such other person. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. '601(c), any violation of paragraph (a)(1) is an unclassified misdemeanor, unless the victim falls within one of several specified categories. By engaging in the course of conduct described herein with Miller, the Respondent sexually harassed and offensively touched Miller in violation of Rule 8.4(b). (Count 52) L. Mr. Tenenbaum testified about his experience as a Delaware attorney, his legal work for various law-related associations and his public and community service throughout his legal career (Hearing Transcript, pages 155-167; hereafter T). He testified about his prior heart attack and the prescription drugs he has taken or is taking currently (T-167-171). He testified about his consultations with a psychiatrist, Dr. Dennis Donnelly, over the past three or four years for treatment of major depression and boundary issues (T-173). Respondent stated his understanding that boundary issues is saying or doing things that can be misinterpreted by other people, misinterpreted by other people as crossing the line (T-171-172). He testified about his hugging tendencies and confirmed that his hugging was not intended in a sexual way (T-174, 175), but acknowledged that because of his boundary issues, the huggings could very well have been misinterpreted (T-175). He next testified as to the examinations, testing and therapy that he undertook through the Professional Renewal Center, the report of which appears as Exhibit 3 to the Stipulation and Joint Recommendation (T-176-177). He testified briefly regarding the sexual relationship he had with a client during the course of his representation in 1998, noting that this came to light as a result of his admission of this relationship, and not as a result of a complaint to the ODC (T-177-178). He acknowledged that this conduct was wrongful ( malum prohibitum and malum in se ) even prior to the Rule change (T-177-178) [3] . Lastly, he testified that he was woefully embarrassed and horribly sorry for the matters leading to these proceedings, ending his testimony with his statement that this is not the note upon which I would have liked to have ended my career (T-178). In response to further questions from the Board, Respondent confirmed that he was not currently practicing law in the State of Delaware; that he was not actively practicing in either of the two other jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice (Pennsylvania and New York) and that he intended to take whatever steps were necessary to confirm his inactive status or voluntarily retirement in all jurisdictions (T-179-182). M. Following Respondent's testimony, both Ms. Rocanelli and Mr. Weiner spoke in support of the Board's adoption of the recommended sanction. N. In reaching its findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate sanction, the Board carefully considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards), and the factors considered under the Standards: 1. What ethical duty did the lawyer violate? (A duty to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession?) The foregoing admitted facts, the uncontested testimony and the admitted and uncontested violations together substantiate that the ethical duties Respondent violated were those owed both to his clients and to the legal system (and thus the profession). 2. What was the lawyer's mental state? (Did the lawyer act intentionally, knowingly or negligently?) Ms. Rocanelli, on behalf of the ODC, noted her position that the record established the Respondent's intentional conduct (T-186). Respondent's counsel did not argue otherwise. Although Respondent offered some testimony to negate that certain of his conduct was intended to be sexual in nature, the Board finds that the Respondent's mental state is best characterized as intentional. 3. What was the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct? (Was there a serious or potentially serious injury?) In reviewing the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, the Board agrees with the ODC that the record established that Respondent's conduct resulted in actual harm to some, if not all of the testifying witnesses. In discussing the appropriate sanction, the ODC made reference to Section 5.12 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyers Sanctions (1991; as amended 1992; the Standards). Ms. Rocanelli noted in her closing remarks: Under Standard 5.12, a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in 5.11, and those elements address particular types of conduct which are not present here, but which conduct seriously adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice (T-187). Ms. Rocanelli further noted that 4.32 states that a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose that conflict to a client, the possible effect of the conflict, and as a result, injury or potential injury is caused (T-188). Lastly, Ms. Rocanelli confirmed that Respondent and the ODC agreed upon suspension as the appropriate result in this case, in the interests of the witnesses and the Respondent's own interests as well (T-189). The Board is of the opinion that Standard 4.32 is directly applicable to this case, and with the stipulation of the Respondent that suspension is appropriate, provides the bases for the Board's finding that a suspension is the appropriate initial sanction. O. After making this initial determination of the appropriate sanction, The Board then gave consideration to aggravating and mitigating circumstances that could lead to a different sanction. The aggravating and mitigating factors stipulated to by Respondent and ODC, and adopted by the Board, are restated herein.