Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court disbarred Leonard Kingsley, a Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorney who was not admitted in Delaware, for engaging in the unauthorized practice of Delaware law and knowingly violating a cease-and-desist order. The Court held that it had disciplinary authority over a non-Delaware lawyer who provided legal services in Delaware and concluded that disbarment meant unconditional exclusion from admission to or exercise of any privilege to practice law in Delaware.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Delaware disciplinary authorities had subject-matter jurisdiction over a lawyer who was not admitted to the Delaware Bar but provided legal services in Delaware.
- Whether Kingsley's conduct constituted a systematic and continuous presence in Delaware for the practice of law in violation of Delaware Lawyers' Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5.
- Whether disbarment was the appropriate sanction for a non-Delaware lawyer who knowingly violated or assisted in violating a Delaware cease-and-desist order after continuing unauthorized legal services.
Holdings
- The Delaware disciplinary authorities have jurisdiction over a lawyer not admitted in Delaware who provides or offers to provide legal services in Delaware.
- Kingsley established a systematic and continuous presence in Delaware for the practice of law, violating Delaware's professional-conduct rules.
- Disbarment was appropriate for Kingsley's knowing violation of the Estep cease-and-desist order and the resulting serious harm or potential harm to clients, the public, and the legal system.
Key quotations
“Disbarment in the context of an attorney not admitted in Delaware means "the unconditional exclusion from the admission to or the exercise of any privilege to practice law in this State."” (at 659)
“Rule 5.5 of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct permits out-of-state lawyers to provide legal services in Delaware under four exceptions set forth in Rule 5.5(c) and two exceptions in Rule 5.5(d).” (at 659)
Factual background
Kingsley, who was admitted in Pennsylvania and New Jersey but not Delaware, prepared wills, trusts, powers of attorney, and deeds for more than seventy-five Delaware clients while working with accountant Ralph V. Estep. After the ODC advised him that his Delaware-law activities violated the rules, he continued the practice through his Pennsylvania firm under an $8,000 monthly retainer, relying principally on information gathered by Estep and arranging only nominal involvement by Delaware lawyers. After Estep entered a Delaware cease-and-desist order, Kingsley continued preparing documents and giving advice for Estep's Delaware clients, conduct that was deemed admitted in the disciplinary proceeding.
Procedural history
The ODC filed a disciplinary petition in August 2007 alleging that Kingsley practiced Delaware law without admission, maintained a systematic and continuous presence in Delaware, held himself out as authorized to practice there, and knowingly disobeyed a cease-and-desist order. Kingsley failed to answer timely, so the allegations and charges were deemed admitted; the Board found subject-matter jurisdiction, concluded that the violations warranted disbarment, and recommended associated practice restrictions. The Supreme Court sustained the ODC's objections to limitations recommended by the Board, agreed that disbarment was appropriate, and entered its own disciplinary order.