Opinion ID: 1926278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Proportionality of Sanction Compared to Other Cases

Text: In addition to ensuring that the sanction we impose serves the goal of protecting the public, any disciplinary sanction imposed by the Court must also serve the goal of deterring other lawyers from similar misconduct. In order to have an appropriate, and not unduly chilling, deterrent effect, lawyer discipline should be predictable, fair, and consistent with our prior decisions imposing lawyer discipline. We have reviewed this case in light of both our prior decisions imposing suspension and in light of our prior decisions imposing a public reprimand and probation. We find Reardon's case distinguishable from our prior suspension cases for many reasons. First, Reardon was not on disciplinary probation at the time of the misconduct. [24] Second, Reardon's conduct in this case, although negligent, did not involve intentional or knowing misconduct, [25] or even gross negligence. [26] Nor did his misconduct cause serious or potentially serious injury. [27] Unlike other cases where suspension was held appropriate, [28] Reardon has shown remorse and has accepted full responsibility for his misconduct and has implemented permanent changes to his law practice in order to reduce the risks of any future negligent misconduct. These permanent, substantive restrictions on Reardon's practice will protect the public by greatly reducing the risk of harm that might result from any future misconduct. In considering our precedents, we find Reardon's case to be analogous to the circumstances presented in In re Solomon. [29] In that case, Solomon admitted that in a period of four years she had violated seven different disciplinary rules in eight separate client matters. Although Solomon did not have a prior disciplinary record, the Court found her numerous rule violations established a pattern of misconduct that involved failure properly to maintain her accounts and records, failing to protect her clients' interests through appropriate communication and diligent representation, failing to comply with her obligations to the judicial system, and otherwise failing to properly manage her law practice. Notwithstanding these findings, the Court concluded that Solomon's lack of dishonest motive, her recent cooperation with the disciplinary process, and her willingness to alter drastically the manner in which her law practice is managed, warranted a public reprimand along with certain permanent limitations on Solomon's future practice, and a four year public probation subject to certain terms, conditions, and limitations. Given the totality of the circumstances in Reardon's case, we find that a sanction similar to that imposed in In re Solomon to be appropriate. Accordingly, it is ordered that the sanction to be imposed in the Reardon matter is as follows: (1) Reardon is hereby publicly reprimanded for his conduct in this case; (2) Reardon is hereby placed on disciplinary probation for two years commencing September 15, 2000, and ending September 14, 2002. During his probationary period, he shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Practice Monitor. A Practice Monitor who is an experienced lawyer resident in Sussex County shall be designated by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and approved by the Court no later than October 1, 2000. Reardon shall consult with the Practice Monitor within ten days of the start of his probationary period concerning Reardon's office practices and procedures. Reardon shall implement any suggestions of the Practice Monitor to improve his office practices and procedures and shall permit the Practice Monitor to supervise such implementation through periodic checks with Reardon and his office staff; b. Reports. Reardon shall file quarterly reports with ODC certifying that he has consulted with the Practice Monitor concerning the maintenance of sound practices and procedures. Each report shall contain the Practice Monitor's certification that Reardon has complied with this term of his probation. c. Compliance. Reardon shall cooperate fully with ODC in its effort to monitor compliance with this probation and promptly respond to ODC's correspondence by given due dates. d. Violation. If ODC concludes after giving Reardon an opportunity to respond that he has violated the terms of his probation, ODC, may file a petition directly with this Court requesting that he be suspended from the practice of law. e. Disclosure. Reardon must provide written notice to all current and prospective clients that he is on disciplinary probation. (3) Reardon shall be subject to the following permanent conditions and restrictions on his law practice: a. He shall not accept representation in any civil matters, except court-appointed guardian cases. b. He shall not accept representation in any felony criminal cases. This opinion and order shall be disseminated by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.