Opinion ID: 2087528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 49

Heading: appropriate sanctions reprimand and restitution probation with conditions

Text: This Court is vested with the inherent and exclusive authority for disciplinary members of its Bar. [7] The Court has wide latitude in determining the form of discipline to be imposed. [8] The Court considers four factors when considering an appropriate sanction: (i) the nature of the duty violated; (ii) the lawyer's mental state; (iii) the actual/potential injury caused by the misconduct; and, (iv) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [9] The Court has carefully considered the breadth and scope of the sanctions recommended by the Board. We have been advised that Solomon made prompt and full restitution to the clients identified in the prehearing stipulation. The Court has also been advised that since the Board hearing, Solomon has complied with all of the conditions and limitations recommended by the Board. The Court approves the Board's recommendations. In addition, the Court has decided that, during the entire probationary period, Solomon must maintain malpractice insurance at the levels of and commensurate with her current coverage. [10] Solomon must also make the following disclosure to all current and prospective clients. I am required to inform you that I am on disciplinary probation for violation of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the Supreme Court has noted that this disclosure to my clients is not intended to have adverse implications with regard to my character or fitness to practice law. This disclosure must be made in writing and at the same time the disclosure is made about the waiver of attorney-client privilege with regard to the role of the practice monitor. The acknowledgment and agreement by the client must also be in a writing that is witnessed by another member of the Delaware Bar. 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. [11] The lawyer discipline system was not designed to be either punitive or penal in nature. [12] In deciding upon the appropriate sanction, this Court considers the multi-faceted 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. [13] The Court has concluded that all of the congruent purposes of an attorney disciplinary proceeding are met by: the permanent conditions and limitations on Solomon's future practice of law; the award of restitution to her clients; the imposition of a public reprimand with a four-year probation subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this opinion. The Court commends Louis B. Ferrara and David J. Ferry, Jr. Their efforts to preserve Solomon's legal career while protecting Solomon's clients are in accordance with the highest traditions of the Delaware Bar. This opinion shall be disseminated by Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with Rule 3 and Rule 14 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility.