Opinion ID: 2302531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Oath and Discipline

Text: For centuries, the attorney oath served as the primary statement of the ethical standards for the legal profession and also as the basis for attorney discipline. In an 1835 disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized a broad range of options for sanctioning lawyers, including expulsion from the bar, reprimand, and fines. [42] The Court emphasized the importance of caution in assessing the extreme punishment of expulsion. [43] Nevertheless, it concluded that expulsion was the appropriate penalty for an attorney's violation of his or her oath: It is not doubted that any breach of the official oath is a valid cause, for proceeding for the former [expulsion]; for the man who deliberately violates the sanctions of a lawful oath, proves himself to be unworthy of further confidence; society has no other hold upon him. The most insignificant breach of the fidelity enjoined may, therefore, be visited with this measure. [44] In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized that the end to be attained by removal, is not punishment, but protection. [45] In 1908, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted national model standards of conduct for lawyers. Although the oath was part of those efforts, the ABA's 1908 project began promulgating black letter model rules of ethical conduct with more detailed guidance than was provided for in the oath alone. The ABA's recommended ethical standards for lawyers are currently set forth in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the ABA's Model Rules, provide detailed ethical guidance for Delaware lawyers, including the duty of honesty. The Board found that Davis violated, inter alia, Rule 8.1(a), Rule 8.4(b) and Rule 8.4(d): Rule 8.1(a) provides that, in connection with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact. Rule 8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Notwithstanding this Court's adoption of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, the oath remains the primary statement of core ethical values for Delaware lawyers. Two fundamental ethical principles in the Delaware oath are to act with fidelity to the Court and to use no falsehood. The record reflects that Davis violated these fundamental ethical principles before and during his suspension, and thereafter, when he sought reinstatement.