Opinion ID: 1888939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prior Delaware Cases

Text: This Court recently had to consider the appropriate sanction to impose upon a lawyer whose only professional misconduct resulted from a misdemeanor drug conviction with no other associated disciplinary rule violations. In that case, In re Howard, [19] the Court found a substantial period of suspension to be justified because the respondent's criminal conduct reflected an indifference to his legal obligations and his lack of respect for his position as an officer of this Court. [20] The Court imposed a three-year suspension. Given the range of authorized suspension sanctions under our rule, [21] we find that a three-year suspension also is appropriate in Steiner's case. Although Steiner's misconduct did not injure a client, it did cause serious physical injuries to two people. Furthermore, unlike Howard, who offered proof of a meaningful and sustained period of recovery from his drug addiction, Steiner did not establish his successful rehabilitation from his alcohol addiction. Under the circumstances, a three-year suspension is fair and is consistent with our goals of protecting the public and the administration of justice, preserving confidence in the legal profession, and deterring other lawyers from similar misconduct. [22]