Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary proceeding involving attorney Francine R. Solomon. The Court approved the Board of Professional Responsibility’s report and ordered a six-month suspension, compliance with disciplinary rules, and potential permanent practice restrictions or reconsideration of her retirement application.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should approve the Board of Professional Responsibility's Final Report and recommended discipline.
- What discipline and practice restrictions should be imposed for the respondent's professional misconduct.
- What action, if any, should be taken regarding the respondent's application for a Certificate of Retirement that incorrectly stated no disciplinary matters were pending.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court approved the Board of Professional Responsibility's Final Report.
- The respondent was suspended from practicing law in Delaware for six months, with the suspension continuing thereafter until the Court entered an order establishing the permanent practice restrictions contemplated by the Board's Report or reconsidered her Certificate of Retirement application.
- The Court took no action on the Certificate of Retirement application during the disciplinary proceeding and permitted the respondent to ask the Court to reconsider the application after the six-month suspension period ended.
Key quotations
“The Court hereby orders that the Respondent is suspended from practicing law in Delaware for a period of six months from the date of this opinion.” (870 A.2d at 1190)
“When the six-month term of suspension is over, the Respondent’s suspension will continue to be in effect until, at the Respondent’s request, this Court has entered an order establishing the permanent practice restrictions contemplated by the Report.” (870 A.2d at 1190)
Factual background
Solomon admitted that she miscited Family Court Rule 45(b) rather than Family Court Rule 6(b) in a motion to enlarge time, characterizing the error as a technical violation of Rule 1.1. The Board recommended a six-month suspension, three years of public probation, and permanent restrictions on her practice. While the disciplinary proceeding was pending, Solomon submitted a Certificate of Retirement application that erroneously stated that no disciplinary matters were pending, later attributing the omission to excusable neglect.
Procedural history
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Final Report concerning charges of professional misconduct and recommended discipline. Solomon objected, arguing that her admitted technical violation warranted at most a private admonition or, alternatively, a public reprimand. During the proceeding, she also filed an application for a Certificate of Retirement that incorrectly stated that no disciplinary matters were pending. The Supreme Court approved the Board's Report, imposed a six-month suspension, and prescribed additional procedural and practice-restriction requirements.