82 A.3d 716
Del.2013Background
- Nadel is not admitted to the Delaware Bar; he is admitted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (1982) and privately practices in New Jersey.
- From 2009 to 2012, Nadel engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Delaware by advising and attempting to settle auto-accident claims involving Delaware residents and policies.
- Nadel met with roughly 75 Delaware clients, about 10–15% of his practice, often in Delaware; he would settle claims or transfer to a Delaware attorney if litigation arose.
- He did not file lawsuits in Delaware, did not advertise or solicit Delaware clients, and did not claim Delaware bar admission, but his Delaware contacts could have created the impression of DE licensure.
- The ODC charged two counts under Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.5(b)(1) and (b)(2); Nadel admitted both violations.
- The Panel found willful violations, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and recommended sanctions including a one-year suspension, one-year ban on advising Delaware clients, three-year pro hac vice prohibition, public reporting, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum/forum-selection and proper charging authority | ODC has discretion to prosecute before the BPR, not the BUPL | Nadel argues proceeding before BPR could yield harsher sanctions | Proper forum; ODC discretion upheld; Panel and Court may determine sanctions |
| Equal protection regarding sanctions for first offense | One-year suspension is appropriate for a first offense | Thirty years of experience and 75 violations cannot be treated as a first offense | No equal protection violation; conduct widely violates rules and is not a first offense |
| Adequacy of sanctions to achieve disciplinary objectives | Panel’s one-year suspension plus restrictions protect public/justice and deter | Public probation could suffice for deterrence | Panel’s sanctions, including suspension and restrictions, align with ABA standards and objectives |
| Support by ABA standards and factual findings | Findings show knowing violation and potential client injury | Nadel lacked intent to harm ( foil) | Factual findings supported; suspension justified under ABA Standards 7.1–7.4 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774 (Del. 2007) (ODC discretion to prosecute; panel may impose sanctions; authority over disciplinary matters)
- In re Kingsley, 950 A.2d 659 (Del. 2008) (out-of-state practice rules; disciplinary decisions relevant to sanctions)
- In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482 (Del. 2007) (court discusses Rule 5.5 and disciplinary framework)
- In re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851 (Del. 2003) (ABA standards and reinstatement context; authority cited)