Opinion ID: 1960075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events Leading to Disciplinary Charges

Text: On September 1, 1998, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a Petition for Discipline against Shearin. The Petition alleged six violations of the DLRPC by Shearin. The events which led to the ODC's charges against Shearin arose from Shearin's role in litigation, which commenced in 1991, concerning the ownership and governance of certain church properties located in Wilmington, Delaware and elsewhere. The parties involved in that litigation were the Mother African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church (Mother Congregation), the Conference of African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church (AUMP Church), and its President Prelate, Delbert L. Jackson (Bishop Jackson). [2] Shearin was the attorney for the Conference and Bishop Jackson in that litigation. That litigation resulted in the entry of a final judgment (Final Judgment) on February 24, 1993 which denied the claims of Shearin's clients, the AUMP Church and Bishop Jackson, and upheld the claims of the plaintiff, the Mother Congregation and its members. The Court of Chancery held that the church properties in question belonged to the Mother Congregation, its Trustees and its members. The Court of Chancery issued a final injunction restraining the AUMP Church from interfering with the use and enjoyment of the properties by the Mother Congregation and its members and also invalidated a deed that purported to transfer the church properties from the Mother Congregation to the AUMP Church. The Court of Chancery's Order also imposed sanctions on Shearin under Chancery Court Rule 11 and ordered her to pay $459.00 to the plaintiffs' attorneys. On July 13, 1995, the Court of Chancery entered an Order finding Shearin in civil contempt of court for violating the terms of the Final Judgment. The Court of Chancery transmitted its Memorandum Opinion and Order to the ODC for it to consider appropriate disciplinary measures against Ms. Shearin, whose pattern of behavior in this case raises serious questions as to her willingness to abide by the standards of conduct expected of attorneys who practice before this Court. On September 22, 1995, the Court of Chancery entered an Order finding Shearin in civil contempt for conduct that the Court found to be in violation of the Court's July 13, 1995 Order. The Court's Order also directed that a copy of the Order be transmitted to ODC to take such disciplinary action against [Shearin] as it deems appropriate. These two referrals to ODC led to the initiation of three separate disciplinary proceedings against Shearin, which resulted in the imposition of a one-year suspension from the practice of law. [3] The pending ODC Petition arose from a lawsuit filed by Shearin, pro se, and Bishop Jackson on February 26, 1997 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the Shearin Lawsuit). The claims asserted in the Shearin Lawsuit were brought under the federal civil rights laws, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The named defendants included individual trustees of the Mother Congregation, attorneys who had represented the Mother Congregation, several Superior Court Judges, two Vice-Chancellors, most current and former Justices of the Delaware Supreme Court, some U.S. District Court judges and judges of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, one attorney employed by the ODC, and a United States Senator. In the complaint, Bishop Jackson alleged that defendant Jarman had conspired with other named defendants to break up the AUMP Church and to take its church buildings and land away from it. Bishop Jackson also alleged that various named defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Jackson and the AUMP Church members of church properties (hereinafter Jackson Claims). In claims that were unrelated to Bishop Jackson's claims concerning the church and its properties, Shearin alleged that one defendant, then a United States District Court Judge: unlawfully refused to authorize payments to Shearin for services she had rendered as a court-appointed attorney under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; had induced other federal judges in the District of Delaware to do the same; had caused Shearin's name to be removed from the panel of attorneys who were eligible for CJA appointments in Delaware; and had unlawfully induced other Delaware District Court judges to dismiss all the cases in which Shearin was involved as an attorney for the plaintiff. Shearin alleged that the judge in the Court of Chancery proceedings suffered a progressive mental disability which caused him to exhibit mood swings and injudicious conduct, including hostility to litigants and court personnel. Shearin also alleged that the same jurist had induced other Delaware judges to ratify his rulings in the AUMP church cases, even when those rulings were contrary to the evidence before the courts and to the controlling law. Lastly, Shearin alleged that several of the named defendants had defamed Shearin in various publications and legal proceedings. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 27, 1998, all of the claims set forth in the Shearin Lawsuit were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. [4] In dismissing the claims concerning the AUMP Church and its properties, the federal trial judge in the District of Columbia stated: A review of the relief sought by plaintiffs demonstrates that in effect plaintiffs seek the same relief they were unable to obtain in the prior lawsuits ... the court concludes that the plaintiffs underlying constitutional claims are inextricably intertwined with the previous state court judgments. This case presents allegations already entertained and decided in various state court actions... The relief plaintiffs seek is precisely what the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars. Accordingly, this court lack subject matter jurisdiction over such claims ... The court also dismissed Shearin's claims against the defendant, Delaware District Court Judge stating: They are, for the reasons already stated, without merit and shamefully frivolous. Indeed the record in this case suggests that bringing these claims represents a pattern and course of conduct worthy of consideration for action by the State of Delaware Bar Disciplinary Counsel.