43 A.3d 856
Del.2012Background
- The Court suspended Davis for one year on May 27, 2009 for misconduct including false notarizations and misrepresentations.
- During reinstatement review, ODC found additional misconduct pre- and post-suspension and filed a new Petition for Discipline on January 5, 2011.
- Board on Professional Responsibility concluded Davis violated multiple Rules (1.3, 3.4, 5.5, 8.1, 8.4, etc.) and recommended disbarment in its Sanction Report (Feb. 15, 2012).
- ODC and Davis did not object to the Board’s recommended sanction; this Court independently approves the disbarment.
- Key incidents include a September 18, 2008 single-vehicle accident, a November 5, 2008 real estate settlement, a July 19, 2009 Lums Pond incident, and ongoing post-suspension activities such as seminars and email references.
- Board found a pattern of alcohol-related violations within ten months contributing to the ethics and criminal findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Davis knowingly disobey the Suspension Order? | ODC: yes, by meeting former client, offering legal services, and retaining Davis Law branding after suspension. | Davis: contacts were limited to non-legal roles; no direct legal advice post-suspension. | Yes; some conduct violated the Suspension Order (3.4(c)) and related rules. |
| Did Davis engage in unauthorized practice of law or other misconduct during settlement activities post-suspension? | ODC alleges continued settlement services and seminars violated the order and Rule 5.5(a). | Davis: settlement work and seminars were outside prohibited activities when properly supervised and no direct attorney-client contact. | Panel found limited violation of 3.4(c) and 5.5(a) on specific meetings; overall conduct recognized risk but not a blanket rule against all post-suspension activity. |
| Whether the November 5, 2008 closing and the September 18, 2008 accident support Rule 1.3/8.4(d) violations | ODC: the closing while intoxicated violated diligence and prejudicial conduct; misstatements to police and in reinstatement questionnaire violated 8.1(a). | Davis: conduct did not necessarily impair representation or constitute deliberate rule violations. | Yes, findings support Rule 1.3 and 8.4(d) violations; 8.1(a) false statements also established. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the violations and the pattern of misconduct? | ABA Standards support disbarment for repeated dishonesty and violation of prior discipline orders. | Davis urged lesser sanctions citing mitigation and rehabilitation; but Panel found aggravating factors outweighed mitigation. | Disbarment is the appropriate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774 (Del. 2007) (disbarment appropriate to deter while suspended)
- In re Clyne, 581 A.2d 1118 (Del. 1990) (pattern of misrepresentations; sobriety context)
- In re Melvin, 807 A.2d 550 (Del. 2002) (flagrant misrepresentation and destruction of evidence as discipline basis)
- In re Mekler, 672 A.2d 23 (Del. 1995) (suspended attorney may not have direct client contact; public perception risk)
- In re Frabizzio, 508 A.2d 468 (Del. 1986) (suspended lawyer may perform paralegal tasks but no client contact)