In re Pelletier, 84 A.3d 960

Pelletier is a New Jersey attorney admitted in 1998, not admitted to Delaware Bar, and has never been a Delaware lawyer.
In February 2007, Pelletier formed Riddlefield LLC to provide a Delaware legal-referral service with Delaware-focused representation in letters and advertising.
Pelletier's engagement letters and advertising stated he would provide legal services in Delaware and he performed work for four Delaware injury clients.
All client contact, operative facts, and settlement payments occurred in Delaware, with actions including negotiations with insurers and a $50,000 settlement.
ODC filed a Petition for Discipline on June 17, 2013 alleging Rule 5.5 violations; the Board found Counts I–III proven and recommended a public reprimand.
The Board and ODC disagreed on sanction; the court reviews de novo and imposed a one-year suspension with related restrictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pelletier violated Rule 5.5 by practicing in Delaware without admission	ODC argues he violated Rule 5.5 by establishing an office and representing Delaware clients.	Pelletier argues he relied on advice from Delaware attorneys and believed conduct was permissible.	Pelletier violated Rule 5.5; sanction appropriate.
Whether Pelletier held himself out as admitted to Delaware practice	ODC asserts he advertisedデルaware practice and engaged clients under Delaware authority.	Pelletier contends no intent to misrepresent as admitted and relied on guidance.	Hold out as Delaware attorney violated Rule 5.5; sanction appropriate.
What mental-state standard applies to sanctions (negligence vs knowing)	ODC contends Pelletier acted knowingly, warranting harsher sanction.	Pelletier contends his conduct was negligent rather than knowing.	Court determines Pelletier acted knowingly; standard supports suspension.
Appropriate sanction under ABA Standards for Unauthorized Practice	ABA Standard 7.2 supports suspension for knowing UPL with potential injury.	Board found negligence; mitigating factors argued for lesser sanction.	One-year suspension with specified prohibitions; mitigations insufficient to reduce to reprimand.

In re Nadel, 82 A.3d 716 (Del.2013) (suspension appropriate for unlicensed practice; Delaware-public-deterrence rationale)
In re Kingsley, 950 A.2d 659 (Del.2008) (Table; standard for UPL sanctions under Delaware rules)
In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774 (Del.2007) (noticeable cease-and-desist context; clarity of rules affecting conduct)
In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482 (Del.2007) (court framework for disciplinary decisions; cites related authorities)
In re Froelich, 838 A.2d 1117 (Del.2003) (early Delaware authority on disciplinary standards)