In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware: Koyste, 111 A.3d 581

Background

Christopher Koyste, a Delaware solo criminal defense lawyer, represented Curtis Benn on sexual-offense charges involving a 15-year-old victim; a four-paragraph protective order (PO) was negotiated and entered limiting use of State discovery to identify or contact witnesses.
Koyste retained investigator John Slagowski and received discovery including a download of the victim’s cell phone (photos). The State repeatedly reminded Koyste that the materials were subject to the PO.
Koyste directed Slagowski to show certain photos (and the victim’s statement) to Benn and to Benn’s wife (the victim’s mother); some photos were shown and Koyste later notified the court that he had violated the PO.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed an eight-count disciplinary petition alleging violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
The Board found by clear and convincing evidence that Koyste committed two violations of Rule 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying a court order) and two violations of Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); the lawyer-members recommended a public reprimand, the lay member dissented in favor of a private admonition.
The Delaware Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, agreed the misconduct was knowing, and adopted the Board majority’s recommendation of a public reprimand.

Issues

Issue	ODC's Argument	Koyste's Argument	Held
Whether Koyste violated the PO / Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) by causing discovery photos/statements to be shown to the defendant and victim’s mother	Koyste knowingly caused PO-covered materials to be shown in violation of the court order	The PO was ambiguous/overbroad and the photos were not "identifying information" covered by the PO	Held: Violation proven by clear and convincing evidence; PO was plain, Koyste negotiated and agreed to its terms, and he instructed the disclosures without reviewing the PO
Whether Koyste’s misconduct was "knowing"	ODC: Koyste had actual knowledge—participated in drafting PO, received repeated reminders, and failed to review before directing disclosure	Koyste: He mistakenly forgot the exact terms and later relied on advice that the materials might not be covered	Held: Knowing misconduct established; willful ignorance or failure to review a clear court order equates to knowledge
Whether Koyste made false statements to the court / engaged in dishonesty (Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c))	ODC alleged he failed to disclose he was present when a photo was shown and thus was dishonest	Koyste contested some factual assertions and maintained misunderstanding of terms	Held: Court sustained only the 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) violations; other counts were not proven by clear and convincing evidence
Appropriate sanction	ODC sought discipline consistent with ABA standards given potential harm to victim and injury to judicial process	Koyste urged mitigation (no prior discipline, remorse, cooperation, workload pressures) and requested a lesser sanction	Held: Public reprimand appropriate—suspension not warranted given mitigating factors, but public admonition necessary to protect public confidence and deter similar conduct

Key Cases Cited

In re Nadel, 82 A.3d 716 (Del. 2013) (Delaware Supreme Court’s authority to discipline lawyers and standard of review for Board findings)
In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482 (Del. 2007) (review of Board findings and Rule 8.4(d) violations for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
In re Pelletier, 84 A.3d 960 (Del. 2014) (willful ignorance or reliance on others’ advice does not excuse violation of court rules/orders)
In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930 (Del. 2000) (knowing violation of court injunction as professional misconduct)
In re Tos, 576 A.2d 607 (Del. 1990) (knowing violations of court obligations prejudicial to administration of justice)
In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724 (Del. 2003) (public reprimand warranted for negligent misrepresentations and potential harm)
In re Benson, 774 A.2d 258 (Del. 2001) (public reprimand for misconduct involving negligence with potential serious client harm)
In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774 (Del. 2007) (disregard for court orders undermines the legal system)
In re Lassen, 672 A.2d 988 (Del. 1996) (ABA framework and factors for determining lawyer discipline)
In re Reardon, 759 A.2d 568 (Del. 2000) (goals of lawyer discipline: protect public, administration of justice, and deter misconduct)