Opinion ID: 1959834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Length of Suspension Delaware Precedent

Text: The goals of lawyer discipline are to protect the public, to protect the administration of justice, and to preserve confidence in the legal profession. [25] Furthermore, the punishment imposed by the Court also must deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. [26] This Court has held, 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. [27] The difficulty in this case is that there is no analogous Delaware precedent. This Court has never had to consider the appropriate sanction to impose upon a lawyer whose only violation was a misdemeanor drug conviction with no other associated disciplinary rule violations or resulting injuries to clients or others. [28] In the vast majority of Delaware disciplinary cases in which the respondent's ethical violations included a criminal conviction, the criminal conduct at issue was dishonest and selfish in nature and/or resulted in harm to the respondent's clients. [29] In those cases, disbarment was the only appropriate sanction. In this case, it is undisputed that Howard's misconduct was not the result of dishonesty or deceit, nor did his misconduct result in injury to any client. Nonetheless, Howard's pattern of using illegal drugs, which resulted ultimately in his criminal convictions, reflects an indifference to his legal obligations and his lack of respect for his position as an officer of this Court. Moreover, his untreated drug addiction had the potential for causing serious harm to his clients. Thus, we find a substantial period of suspension is justified. The ABA Standards recommend that a period of suspension be no less than six months but in no case should it exceed three years. [30] The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, on the other hand, provide that a period of suspension may be as long as five years. [31] The more stringent Delaware rule reflects the prevailing attitude of the members of our Bench and Bar on the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in the legal profession and imposing serious penalties, when warranted, for lawyer disciplinary violations. [32] After careful consideration of all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in Howard's case, we find a three year suspension to be appropriate given the range of authorized suspension sanctions under our rule. Because there is no analogous Delaware precedent, the sanction we impose in this case will serve as a benchmark for any future disciplinary cases. We believe a three year suspension, retroactive to January 21, 1998, will best serve the goals of lawyer discipline. It will send a message to other Delaware lawyers and to the public that this Court takes very seriously a lawyer's fundamental duty to foster the public's confidence in our Bar and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. A lawyer must abide by the law and maintain the standards of personal integrity and honesty upon which the public relies, and which reflect on every member of the legal profession. A three year suspension will also serve to protect the public and the administration of justice by postponing Howard's opportunity to seek reinstatement until January 20, 2001, which will give Howard further time to establish himself as a recovered addict. Finally, we believe that a three year suspension will have an appropriate, but not unduly chilling, deterrent effect, given the range of authorized sanctions under Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 8(a)(2). A three year suspension will send a strong message to other lawyers who may be facing similar addictions and compel them to recovery before their misconduct leads to a criminal conviction or results in injury to their clients.