Opinion ID: 2302531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: board on professional responsibility of the supreme court of the state of delaware

Text: In the Matter of a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware: MICHAEL R. DAVIS, Respondent. ODC File No. 2010-0404-B, Pending before the Board on Professional Responsibility is a Petition for Discipline filed on January 5, 2011 (Petition) by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). The Petition alleges that Michael R. Davis, Esq. (Davis or Respondent) engaged in professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.1(b) (two counts), 8.4(a), 8.4(b) (three counts), and 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) (five counts) of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Misconduct (Rules) and Rule 7 of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Davis is a real estate attorney. On May 27, 2009 the Delaware Supreme Court suspended Davis from engaging in the practice of law as a member of the Delaware Bar for a period of one year based on misconduct involving real estate transactions in which he had an interest, directly or indirectly, and in which he acted as counsel and/or settlement agent. In the Matter of Michael R. Davis, No. 301, 2008 at 13 (Del. May 27, 2009) ( per curiam ). The Court found that Davis's misconduct involved false notarizations, failure to safeguard fiduciary funds, failure to pay taxes, and misrepresentation. Id. at 12. The Supreme Court Order suspending Davis (Suspension Order) prohibited him from engaging in the practice of law as a member of the Delaware Bar for a period of one year and from sharing in any legal fees arising from clients or cases referred by Davis during the period of suspension to any other attorney or from sharing in any legal fees earned for services by others during such period of suspension. Id. at 13. On May 27, 2010, Davis through his counsel submitted responses to a Reinstatement Questionnaire to Petitioner. Ex. 3. The ODC investigated the Reinstatement Questionnaire and concluded that Respondent had violated the Rules both before and after his suspension and so alleged in its Petition. Respondent answered the Petition on January 25, 2011 (Answer). The parties presented evidence on whether Davis had violated the Suspension Order on February 23-24, 2011. Post-hearing briefing concluded on June 9, 2011. For medical and logistical reasons the Supreme Court extended to October 7, 2011 the date for the Panel's decision on whether Davis had violated any ethical duties. The Panel begins by setting forth the claims alleged and summary of recommendations, followed by the Panel's factual findings and the Panel's conclusions regarding each count.
The ODC's claims arise out of four alleged acts: First, that Davis violated the terms of the Suspension Order by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by maintaining that part of his law office that performed title and settlement services, continuing to meet with clients or prospective clients, and continuing to speak at real estate seminars (Counts I-V); second, that prior to the Suspension Order, Davis violated the Rules by conducting a real estate settlement while under the influence of alcohol (Counts VI-VIII); third, that Davis violated the Rules by misleading police in connection with a traffic accident and then failing accurately to report the circumstances of that traffic violation in his Reinstatement Questionnaire (Counts XI-XV); and fourth, that Davis engaged in sanctionable conduct by disrobing in a public place while under the influence of alcohol and assisting his son in changing out of a bathing suit and then failing to be fully candid about that incident in his Reinstatement Questionnaire (Counts XVI-XVIII). The ODC voluntarily dismissed Counts IX and X and withdrew from the record all facts and evidence relating to those counts at the outset of the hearing.