Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that attorney Richard L. Abbott violated Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5(d) and 8.4(d) by using inflammatory, discourteous language in briefs and by impugning the integrity of opposing counsel and the tribunal. The Court imposed a public reprimand, issued through the opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Abbott's inflammatory accusations against opposing counsel and discourteous, degrading language in his briefs violated Delaware Lawyers' Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(d).
- Whether Abbott's unfounded allegation that the tribunal might decide the case based on bias rather than the merits violated Rule 3.5(d).
- Whether Abbott's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).
- What sanction was appropriate for the violations.
Holdings
- A lawyer violates Rule 3.5(d) by directly accusing opposing counsel of fabricating the basis of an administrative decision and by using discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal.
- Unfounded accusations impugning the integrity of a tribunal, including an allegation that the tribunal might decide a matter based on bias rather than its merits, violate Rule 3.5(d).
- Conduct that causes a tribunal to strike portions of a lawyer's submissions and devote judicial resources to explaining that action is prejudicial to the administration of justice and violates Rule 8.4(d).
- Zealous advocacy does not require or permit disruptive, disrespectful, degrading, or disparaging rhetoric; such rhetoric crosses the line from acceptable forceful advocacy into unethical conduct.
- A public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Abbott's violations of Rules 3.5(d) and 8.4(d).
Key quotations
“Zealous advocacy never requires disruptive, disrespectful, degrading or disparaging rhetoric.” (at 489)
“The use of such rhetoric crosses the line from acceptable forceful advocacy into unethical conduct that violates the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct.” (at 489)
“The issuance of this opinion will constitute that action.” (at 489)
Factual background
Richard L. Abbott represented 395 Associates, LLC in an appeal to the Delaware Superior Court from a decision of the New Castle County Board of License, Inspection & Review. In his opening and reply briefs, Abbott accused opposing counsel and the County of fabricating legal grounds, used sarcastic and inflammatory characterizations, and suggested that the Superior Court might decide the matter based on bias rather than the merits. The Superior Court struck portions of the briefing sua sponte and issued an opinion explaining its actions, resulting in a waste of judicial resources.
Procedural history
ODC charged Abbott with professional misconduct based on inflammatory and disparaging language in briefs filed in an appeal to the Superior Court from a decision of the New Castle County Board of License, Inspection & Review. The Board on Professional Responsibility found insufficient clear and convincing evidence of violations and dismissed the claims. ODC objected, and the Delaware Supreme Court independently reviewed the record and rejected the Board's conclusions.