 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware6/13/2000
Submitted: May 23, 2000
Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. Findings Affirmed. Respondent Suspended.
This matter is before the Court for final disciplinary action upon review of a Final Report and Recommendations of the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board"). The Final Report was issued following a two-day hearing and the post-hearing filings of the parties. At issue before the Board was a Petition to Discipline the Respondent, John H. Benge, Jr.
PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE
The Petition for Discipline filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") set forth ten counts alleging violations of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. Prior to the Board's hearing, the ODC abandoned Counts Six, Seven, and Eight. Consequently, the Board hearing involved Benge's alleged violations of the seven remaining charges: Counts One through Five, Nine and Ten.
Count One of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 1.1. This rule provides that " lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."
Count Two of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 1.2(a). In pertinent part this rule provides that " lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation . . . and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued."
Count Three of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 1.3. This rule provides that " lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
Count Four of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 1.4(a). This rule provides that " lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information."
Count Five of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 1.4(b). This rule provides that " lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."
Count Nine of the Petition for Discipline contends that Benge violated Rule 7(4) of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Delaware. The ODC contended that Benge violated the terms of the two year probation entered as an order by the Supreme Court of Delaware: In the Matter of Benge, Del. Supr., No. 362, 1996 (Sept. 18, 1996). It contended that Benge violated that portion of the probation which required that, "the Benge shall communicate with each client in writing regarding their pending matters not less frequently than once every three months, and shall respond promptly to reasonable requests for information."
Count Ten of the Petition for Discipline alleged that Benge violated rule 3.3(a)(1). This rule provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal."
BOARD'S DECISION
It was the unanimous decision of the Board that the ODC established by clear and convincing evidence that Benge violated Count Three, Rule 1.3; Count Four, Rule 1.4(a); and Count Nine, Board Rule 7(4). By a two-to-one decision, the Board also concluded that the ODC established Benge's violation of Count One, Rule 1.1. The Board was not persuaded that the ODC established by clear and convincing evidence Benge's violation of Count Two, Rule 1.2(a); Count Five, Rule
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|