Opinion ID: 2335436
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: June 30, 2006 to October 30, 2006: Kingsley Terminates His Employment Relationship with Estep but Does Essentially the Same Work on Retainer as Legal Counsel

Text: On June 6, 2006, as part of the proceeding initiated by the ODC in January of 2006 against Estep for the unauthorized practice of law, Estep entered in to Admitted Facts and Admissions of Conduct Constituting the Unauthorized Practice of Law. ODC 7. Among other things, Estep agreed that the drafting of wills and trusts by a non-lawyer who is not authorized to practice law by the Delaware Supreme Court constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by drafting wills and trusts. Id. at ¶ 11. Schwartz testified that as part of ODC's investigation she learned that Kingsley worked for Estep. She called him in June, 2006 and told him You are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. You are assisting Mr. Estep. Sanctions Hearing, Tr. at 74. She also told him You should leave this employment. You are going to seriously jeopardize your ability to be a Delaware lawyer. Id. Kingsley acknowledges that he spoke to Schwartz, that she told him he was on the ODC's radar, and that she told him to cease his employment with Estep but denies that she informed him that he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Id. at 51. The ODC's allegation that In June 2006, the ODC advised Respondent that his activities with respect to rendering legal advice on Delaware law were in violation of the Rules has been deemed admitted. Petition, ¶ 6. Following the conversation with Schwartz, Kingsley testified that he understood that ODC's primary objection to Estep's practice was that it was unacceptable to have a Delaware attorney simply review this without their [sic] actually being face-to-face time between the Delaware attorney and the client. Id. Estep and Kingsley modified their practice in that Kingsley 1) ceased his employment with Estep, 2) formed his own legal practice with an office in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Kingsley Law Firm, P.C., 3) secured a retainer of $8000 per month to represent Estep, 4) continued to draft wills, trusts, powers of attorney and deeds for Estep's Delaware clients based on Estep's notes, 5) ceased meeting with Estep and any of the clients for the initial interview and 6) understood that Estep would arrange for a Delaware attorney  Bialecki through August 2006 and then McCracken after that  to be present when the clients came in to meet with Estep to sign the documents. As Kingsley testified, my understanding of the ODC's discussions with Mr. Estep was that their problem was that no attorney was meeting face to face with the clients. And so my understanding was that we resolved that.... And so, I thought that the change in the process that Mr. Estep had put in effect where Mr. Bialecki or Mr. McCracken was present to present these documents to the client was sufficient under Delaware law. Id. at 57. Using this process, Kingsley prepared legal documents for approximately 20 individuals and couples and forwarded the documents to Estep for presentation to the Delaware clients by Estep in the presence of either Mr. Bialecki or Mr. McCracken. The record reflects no effort by Kingsley to determine whether the new arrangement was working to ensure that Delaware counsel met with the clients to ensure that the documents he prepared complied with their wishes. Sometime in August or September of 2006, Kingsley learned that Estep had been convicted of a felony for terroristic threatening involving a gun. Tr. at 52-53. Thereafter, Kingsley ceased to name Estep as a personal representative as it is impermissible to name a convicted felon to such a role. Id. at 55. Kingsley did not bring that problem to the attention of other clients for whom Kingsley had named Estep as the personal representative. Id. Kingsley acknowledged that was a failing on his part but testified that he lacked access to the whole database as he was no longer an employee but merely outside counsel. Id. at 55-56.