IN TI-[E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER § OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME § No. 291, 2017 COURT OF TI-[E STATE OF §
DELAWARE: § Board Case No. ll3239-R § TIMOTHY P. CAIRNS, § § Petitioner. §
Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 21, 2017
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. MB
This 215‘ day of July 2017, it appears to the Court that:
(l) On February 5, 2016, this Court suspended the petitioner,
Timothy P. Cairns, from the practice of law for twenty-one months, retroactive
to November 12, 2014.' Cairns was eligible to petition for reinstatement on or
about August 12, 2016. He filed his petition for reinstatement on March 31,
2017. The Oft`ice of Disciplinary Counsel did not object to Cairns’ petition.
(2) The Board on Professional Responsibility held a hearing on
Cairns’ petition and filed its Report and Recommendation with this Court on
July 18, 2017. The Board recommends that Cairns be reinstated with a single
agreed-to condition that Cairns continue a monitoring program with DE-LAP
l fn re Cairns, 2016 WL 462672 (Del. Feb. 5, 2016).
for one year. Neither Caims nor the Oftice of Disciplinary Counsel have filed any objections to the Board’s Report.
(3) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation carefully. The Court has determined that the Board’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED the Board’s Report and Recommendation (which is attached) is hereby ACCEPTED. Timothy P. Caims, Esquire shall be reinstated, effective immediately, as a member of the Bar of this Court subject to a one-year period of monitoring With DE-LAP.
BY THE COURT:
fsf Collins J'. Seitz. Jr. Justice
EFiled: Ju| 18 201710:08A , ` Filing lD 60864396 Case Number 291,2017
= - BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY " ll
or rios suPaEMP. coUR'r 01= THE sTA'rE or DELAWARE .,‘ ., \ 9 A ¢|, u 5 l.u\ \- ~
rN'n-IEMATTEROFAMEMBER oFTHE 3 '- \ i.f..j .§`.L\.l(~n‘*"‘ BARoFTHasUPRBr/mcouaror ) --* " "° DELAWARE= ) coNFmENTLAL
)
) Board Case No. 113239-R
) TIMoTHY P. cAmNs, )
Petiticner.
REPORT OF THE BOARD AND RECOMVIEN'DATION OF REIP~YSTATEMENT
This is the Report and R.ecommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the “Board“) in the above- captioned matter. A hearing was held on May 25, 2017, in the Leonard L. Williams Courthouse, Grand Jury Room 2900, 500 North King Slreet, Wiimington, Deiaware. The Panei of the Board consisted ofWi]iiarn T. Deely, Esq., Gary W. Ferguson and Robert S. Saunders, Esq. (Chair) (collectively, the “Pancl"). Petiticner Timothy P. Caims was represented by Charlcs Slanina, E`.sq. The OEce of Disciplinary Counsel was represented
by Jennifer-»Kate Aaronson, Esq.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTOR¥
On Septernber 23, 2014, at approximately 10:50 p.m., M.r. Caims fell asleep while operating his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, crossed the roadway dividing line and struck an oncoming vehicle, injuring the driver of that vehicle.
On November l?., 2014, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Caims’s request
to transfer to disability inactive status. By Order dated February 5. 2016, the Supreme
Court suspended M.r. Caims ii'orn the practice of law in Delaware for a period of 21 months retroactive to November 12, 2014. Mr. Caims was eligible to petition for reinstatement on or about August 12, 2016.
Mr. Caims filed a Petition for Rei.nstaternent on March 31, 2017. On April 12, 2017, ODC filed an Answer in which it did not oppose reinstatement The Panel held a hearing on May 25, 2017.
At the hearing, Mr. Caims presented his own testimony and testimony from four witnesses, each of whom recommended reinstatement: Al.ice O’Brien, a licensed professional mental health counselor with substantial experience counseling patients with addictions, who has treated Mr. Cairns;l Loura Davis Jones, Esq., a member of the bar and managing partner of the firm where Mr. Cairns previously practiced and has recently worked as a law clerk;2 R. Judson Scaggs, Esq., a member of the bar and Chaizrnan of the Deiaware Lawyers Assistance Committee, which assists Delaware attorneys who are impaired by alcohol or other substance abuse and addiction problems, or by emotional or mental illness or dysfunction;3 and Carol Wa.ldhauser, executive director of the Delawa.re Lawyers Assistance Program (“DE-LAP"), which facilitates h'eatrnent, support and monitoring for judges and lawyers going through quality ot` life or
quality ofprofessionalisrn issues, including alcoholism." Mr. Caims also submitted four
' Transerlpt at 6, 10 (O'Brlen).
1 Transcrlpt at 23 (.Iones).
3 Transeript at 34-35 (Scaggs); Petilioners' Exhiblt 3
4 Transcript at 57 (Waldhauser); Petitioners’ Exhlbit 4.
exhibits, which were pre-hearing letters or reports to the Panel from each of the other witnesses, each of which was admitted without objection.
ODC stated at the heating that, following further investigation after the filing of its A.nswerl it supported reinstatement and believed Mr. Caims should be
welcomed back to the bar.5
On .Tune 6, 2017, a transcript of the hearing was provided to the Pa.nel.
II. FACTUAL FlNDINGS
Irnrnediately after the accident on September 23, 2014, Mr. Caims contacted Ms. Jones6 and DE-LAP.? He entered a twenty-eight day residential treatment program ata rehabilitation facility, Father Martin’s iitshley.ll He successfully completed and was discharged from that prcgram.9
Mr. Caims diligently pursued recovery and rehabilitation.l° Mr. Caims complied with his discharge instructions from Father Martin’s Ashley, which included 90 Alcoholics A.uonymous meetings in 90 days.ll He entered into a two-year Agreement of Understanding with DE-LAP (which he later voluntarily extended) and executed consents
and releases so that Ms. Waldhauser could coordinate services and verify his compliance
’ ‘l`ranscrlpt at 6.
‘ rranscripr ar 24 (Jones).
7 Transeript at 58 (Waldhauser).
' `Now known as Ashley Addlctlon Treatment.
° Transcript at 58-59 (Waldhanser); Petitioners' Exhiblt 4; Transcript at 83 (Cairns). '° Transeript at 62-63 (Waldhauser}.
“ rrans¢ripcn 83 (cau-ns).
with the agreement.u Ms. Waldhauser met or spoke with Mr. Caims weekly, including approximately 460 face-to-face contacts and approximately 92 phone calls.13 Mr. Caims has accepted and complied with all cf her treatment recon'ur:tendaticns.14 Random testing con;lirmed that Mr. Caims had not slipped in his recovery and consumed alcoholic beverages or controlled substancesls M.r. Caims was on probation as a result of the criminal charges that arose ii'om the accident, and Ms. Waldhauser received favorable reports on Mr. Caims from the probation department16
DE-LAP referred Mr. Caims to Ms. O’Brien, and Ms. O'Brien began treating Mr. Caims as a client in November 2014. For the iirst year, Mr. Caims met with Ms. O’Brien weekly or bi-weeldy end, since then, monthly."' Ms. O’Brien also observed Petitioner in weekly group therapy sessions from Decembcr 2014 to ]une 2015." In total, she has counseled Mr. Caims for more than one hundred l:tours.19 Mr. Caims complied with all recommended treatment and counseling.l° Ms. O’Brien testiied that
she has never had a client as determined as Mr. Caims.zl
“ Transcript at 59~61 (Waldhauser); Petitioners' Exhibit 4; T`\'anscript at 85 (Calms).
" Transcript at 69 (Waldhauser).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN TI-[E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER § OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME § No. 291, 2017 COURT OF TI-[E STATE OF §
DELAWARE: § Board Case No. ll3239-R § TIMOTHY P. CAIRNS, § § Petitioner. §
Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 21, 2017
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. MB
This 215‘ day of July 2017, it appears to the Court that:
(l) On February 5, 2016, this Court suspended the petitioner,
Timothy P. Cairns, from the practice of law for twenty-one months, retroactive
to November 12, 2014.' Cairns was eligible to petition for reinstatement on or
about August 12, 2016. He filed his petition for reinstatement on March 31,
2017. The Oft`ice of Disciplinary Counsel did not object to Cairns’ petition.
(2) The Board on Professional Responsibility held a hearing on
Cairns’ petition and filed its Report and Recommendation with this Court on
July 18, 2017. The Board recommends that Cairns be reinstated with a single
agreed-to condition that Cairns continue a monitoring program with DE-LAP
l fn re Cairns, 2016 WL 462672 (Del. Feb. 5, 2016).
for one year. Neither Caims nor the Oftice of Disciplinary Counsel have filed any objections to the Board’s Report.
(3) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation carefully. The Court has determined that the Board’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED the Board’s Report and Recommendation (which is attached) is hereby ACCEPTED. Timothy P. Caims, Esquire shall be reinstated, effective immediately, as a member of the Bar of this Court subject to a one-year period of monitoring With DE-LAP.
BY THE COURT:
fsf Collins J'. Seitz. Jr. Justice
EFiled: Ju| 18 201710:08A , ` Filing lD 60864396 Case Number 291,2017
= - BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY " ll
or rios suPaEMP. coUR'r 01= THE sTA'rE or DELAWARE .,‘ ., \ 9 A ¢|, u 5 l.u\ \- ~
rN'n-IEMATTEROFAMEMBER oFTHE 3 '- \ i.f..j .§`.L\.l(~n‘*"‘ BARoFTHasUPRBr/mcouaror ) --* " "° DELAWARE= ) coNFmENTLAL
)
) Board Case No. 113239-R
) TIMoTHY P. cAmNs, )
Petiticner.
REPORT OF THE BOARD AND RECOMVIEN'DATION OF REIP~YSTATEMENT
This is the Report and R.ecommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the “Board“) in the above- captioned matter. A hearing was held on May 25, 2017, in the Leonard L. Williams Courthouse, Grand Jury Room 2900, 500 North King Slreet, Wiimington, Deiaware. The Panei of the Board consisted ofWi]iiarn T. Deely, Esq., Gary W. Ferguson and Robert S. Saunders, Esq. (Chair) (collectively, the “Pancl"). Petiticner Timothy P. Caims was represented by Charlcs Slanina, E`.sq. The OEce of Disciplinary Counsel was represented
by Jennifer-»Kate Aaronson, Esq.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTOR¥
On Septernber 23, 2014, at approximately 10:50 p.m., M.r. Caims fell asleep while operating his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, crossed the roadway dividing line and struck an oncoming vehicle, injuring the driver of that vehicle.
On November l?., 2014, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Caims’s request
to transfer to disability inactive status. By Order dated February 5. 2016, the Supreme
Court suspended M.r. Caims ii'orn the practice of law in Delaware for a period of 21 months retroactive to November 12, 2014. Mr. Caims was eligible to petition for reinstatement on or about August 12, 2016.
Mr. Caims filed a Petition for Rei.nstaternent on March 31, 2017. On April 12, 2017, ODC filed an Answer in which it did not oppose reinstatement The Panel held a hearing on May 25, 2017.
At the hearing, Mr. Caims presented his own testimony and testimony from four witnesses, each of whom recommended reinstatement: Al.ice O’Brien, a licensed professional mental health counselor with substantial experience counseling patients with addictions, who has treated Mr. Cairns;l Loura Davis Jones, Esq., a member of the bar and managing partner of the firm where Mr. Cairns previously practiced and has recently worked as a law clerk;2 R. Judson Scaggs, Esq., a member of the bar and Chaizrnan of the Deiaware Lawyers Assistance Committee, which assists Delaware attorneys who are impaired by alcohol or other substance abuse and addiction problems, or by emotional or mental illness or dysfunction;3 and Carol Wa.ldhauser, executive director of the Delawa.re Lawyers Assistance Program (“DE-LAP"), which facilitates h'eatrnent, support and monitoring for judges and lawyers going through quality ot` life or
quality ofprofessionalisrn issues, including alcoholism." Mr. Caims also submitted four
' Transerlpt at 6, 10 (O'Brlen).
1 Transcrlpt at 23 (.Iones).
3 Transeript at 34-35 (Scaggs); Petilioners' Exhiblt 3
4 Transcript at 57 (Waldhauser); Petitioners’ Exhlbit 4.
exhibits, which were pre-hearing letters or reports to the Panel from each of the other witnesses, each of which was admitted without objection.
ODC stated at the heating that, following further investigation after the filing of its A.nswerl it supported reinstatement and believed Mr. Caims should be
welcomed back to the bar.5
On .Tune 6, 2017, a transcript of the hearing was provided to the Pa.nel.
II. FACTUAL FlNDINGS
Irnrnediately after the accident on September 23, 2014, Mr. Caims contacted Ms. Jones6 and DE-LAP.? He entered a twenty-eight day residential treatment program ata rehabilitation facility, Father Martin’s iitshley.ll He successfully completed and was discharged from that prcgram.9
Mr. Caims diligently pursued recovery and rehabilitation.l° Mr. Caims complied with his discharge instructions from Father Martin’s Ashley, which included 90 Alcoholics A.uonymous meetings in 90 days.ll He entered into a two-year Agreement of Understanding with DE-LAP (which he later voluntarily extended) and executed consents
and releases so that Ms. Waldhauser could coordinate services and verify his compliance
’ ‘l`ranscrlpt at 6.
‘ rranscripr ar 24 (Jones).
7 Transeript at 58 (Waldhauser).
' `Now known as Ashley Addlctlon Treatment.
° Transcript at 58-59 (Waldhanser); Petitioners' Exhiblt 4; Transcript at 83 (Cairns). '° Transeript at 62-63 (Waldhauser}.
“ rrans¢ripcn 83 (cau-ns).
with the agreement.u Ms. Waldhauser met or spoke with Mr. Caims weekly, including approximately 460 face-to-face contacts and approximately 92 phone calls.13 Mr. Caims has accepted and complied with all cf her treatment recon'ur:tendaticns.14 Random testing con;lirmed that Mr. Caims had not slipped in his recovery and consumed alcoholic beverages or controlled substancesls M.r. Caims was on probation as a result of the criminal charges that arose ii'om the accident, and Ms. Waldhauser received favorable reports on Mr. Caims from the probation department16
DE-LAP referred Mr. Caims to Ms. O’Brien, and Ms. O'Brien began treating Mr. Caims as a client in November 2014. For the iirst year, Mr. Caims met with Ms. O’Brien weekly or bi-weeldy end, since then, monthly."' Ms. O’Brien also observed Petitioner in weekly group therapy sessions from Decembcr 2014 to ]une 2015." In total, she has counseled Mr. Caims for more than one hundred l:tours.19 Mr. Caims complied with all recommended treatment and counseling.l° Ms. O’Brien testiied that
she has never had a client as determined as Mr. Caims.zl
“ Transcript at 59~61 (Waldhauser); Petitioners' Exhibit 4; T`\'anscript at 85 (Calms).
" Transcript at 69 (Waldhauser). The Delaware Lawyers Asslstanee Prcgam’s tile on Mr. Caims was admitted as Petitioners' Exhlbit 4.
" rm=spr 3162-54 (wnahaus¢r).
" Trenscript at 64, 68-69 (Waldauser), 85 (Caims).
" Transcrlpt at 76-77 (Waldauscr).
" rmseripc n 1243 {o'arien); Petition¢rs' Exhibit 1. " Petitioners’ Exhibit l.
“' Petitioners' Exhlbit l.
m Transcript at 15-16 (O'Brien).
“' !d..
Beginning in the fall of 2014, Mr. Caims also actively participated in weekly meetings cfa lawyer support group with Mr. Scaggs, and regularly communicated with Mr. Scaggs by phone and ernail.21 Mr. Scaggs testified that Mr. Cairns has been extremely diligent in his recovery, and a “model” of the “activities, lifestyle choices [and] attitude” that exemplify diligence13 Mr. Caims has also assisted other lawyers with addition or substance abuse issues through DlEl-LAP.24
in Febmary 2016, Mr. Caims came back to his prior linn as a law clerk and has been working as a law clerk since then, approximately 25 hours per week.25 Hc and the linn engaged counsel to assist them in crafting procedures to ensure that his employment as a law clerk did not constitute the practice of law.26 As a law clerk, Mr. Caims has worked directly for Ms. lones, principally doing research and writing, and has done excellent work.z' Because of his continuing work as a law clerk, Mr. Caims has remained aware of recent developments in the law." Ms. loses believes that Mr. Caims is competent and tit to return to the practice of law, and her firm expects that he will
return to his position as a partner if he is reinstated.19
” Tmnscripi n sci-ss (seaggs); 34 (catee).
n Transcript at 36-37 {Sceggs); Petitioners’ Exhibit 3.
" Transcript et 16-17 (O'Brien).
” remain m 26 (Jones); Petitioner santa 2.
‘° 'rransatpr st rio-az (catms).
” rranscapt ac 26-27 (Jnn¢s).
"" Transcrlpt at 31 (.lones); 96-91 (Caims).
29 Transeript at 26, 31 (.ionea); Petitioners' Exhlbit 2; Transeript at 97 (Caims).
Mr. Caims has been sober since September 23, 2014,3° and is committed to remaining in treatment and recovery.:‘I Ms. O’Brien explained that an alcoholic who has remained sober for a year is considered to be in remission, and further explained that in her held sobriety for 2.5 years is considered a mark of rehabilitation31 Ms. Jones believes Mr. Caims is rehabilitated and has seen no signs of slippage in his recovery.33 Mr. Scaggs also believes that M.r. Caims has rehabilitated himself and is ready to practice law again.°`4 Mr. Scaggs noted that Mr. Caims has integrated turnseifinto a community of others in recovery and is active in helping others within the community,” and explained that in his experience, this integration is a “very good indicator" that Mr. Caims will continue his recovery “for the loog-term."36 In addition, Mr. Scaggs states that Mr. Caims “has demonstrated - for an extended period - the emotional stability, candor, goodjndgment and willingness to make positive lifestyle choices that are the
hallmarks of strong and lasting recovery for attomeys.""
’° 'l`ranscript at 84 (Cairns); Petitioner's Exhibit l. ” 'l`ranscrlpt at 19 (O'Brlen).
n Transcript at 211-21 (O'Brien).
” Transcrlpt at 29 (.Tones).
" Trsnscript at 117-48 (Scaggs).
" Transcript at 40, 42-44 (Seaggs).
“ mnseapr at 41, 53-56 (scaggs).
" Petitioners’ Exhiblt 3.
Ms. Waldhauser testified that Mr. Cairns’s alcoholism is in remission, that he has rehabilitated, and that he has put safeguards in place so that his recovery will continue.an Her report to the Panel concludes as follows:
Mr. Caims is fully aware that the root of his past personal and legal problems in the past was his substance abuse disorder, his lack of coping skills and his lack of support. Accordingly, Mr. Caims too is aware that his long-term sobriety and recovery depends on the following: (a) his abstinence from alcohol; (b) his continued participation in the 12 Step Fellowship; his continued involvement with both The Delaware Lawyers Assistance Program (DE-LA.P) and the Lawyers Assistance Cornmittee.
Mr. Caims' proactive, constructive activities and treatment consistently throughout the past two and on»half years are clear evidence that he has taken the responsibility for his own personal health and iitness. Presently, Mr. Caims' conduct and general moral character could not be better. Moreover, Mr. Caims:
A. Has treated problems of health and wellness and today, as confirmed by all licensed health care professionals, is fit to practice law;
B. That a number of years have elapsed since the last offense of unprofessional conduct that led to his initial disability;
C. That his current attitude about the prior offenses, e.g., acceptance of responsibility for, and renunciation of, past wrongdoing and remorse are clearly evident;
D. That his recovery is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and
E. He has shown candor, sincerity, honesty in all of his filings and proceedings
In my professional opinion as Mr. Caims' monitor for the past two and half years, I believe iirmly that M.r. Caims is a man of focus, clarity, commitrnent, moral fiber and sound judgment Furthermore, I believe firmly that Mr. Caims' prognosis for condoned success in living a clean, sober and ethical life is excellent with the safeguards that he knows he must implement - one day [at] a time. For these reasons, I do not believe
” Transcript at 66-61 CWaldhauscr).
that Mr. Caims is a threat to the public and I support his efforts for rcinstatement.”
Mr. Caims has committed to remain involved with DE-LAP assisting other members of the Delaware bar.“0 He has established an extensive “safety net" of family, Eiends and professional colleagues who are fully aware of his situation and understand how important his sobriety is, and would immediately recognize a problem
from any lapse in sobriety."l
I]I. ANALYSIS 'l`o earn reinstatement Mr. Caims must prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the eight elements set forth in Delaware lawyers’ R.ule of Discipiinary Procedure 22(g`). He met this burden. He testiEed credibly and convincingly about his ongoing commitment to recovery.llz Each of the other four witnesses has spent many hours with Mr. Cairns over the last thirty months and testiiied that he is fit and ready to return to the practice of law.
(a) “thc petitioner’s professional rehabilitation, including substantial rehabilitation hom any drug or alcohol problem from which the petitioner had suH`ered"
Mr. Caims has made exemplary efforts to address the causes and consequences of his behavior that led to the accident in September 2014, the resulting
criminal charges, and his suspension Mr. Caims has been completely sober since the
” P¢ttaonm' sxhiait 4 ac p.4.
*° Transcript at 44 (Scaggs); 67 (Waldhauser), 90-91, 101 (Cairns). ‘" 'I'ranscript l04-l 14 (Caims}.
‘= rrans¢ripe 39-91, 91-99 (catns).
accident I-Ie successfully completed aresidential treatment program, has actively engaged in extensive professional and peer counseling for along period of time, and has made important changes in his behavior and lifestyle. Witnesses explained that alcoholism is considered to be “in remissinn" after a year of sobriety, and Mr. Cair'ns’s counselors and monitors, who have spent hundreds of hours with him, consider him to be rehabilitated Mr. Caims has also established a substantial “safety net” to further minimize any remaining risk of recurrence of alcohol-related problems (b) “the petitioner's compliance with all applicable disciplinary orders and
other rules, including conditions ofrestitution"
M.r. Caims has fully complied with the terms of his suspension He paid the ODC costs incurred in connection with the underlying prosecution.'” He complied with all of the conditions of his probation, including restitution.“ The judgment against
Mr. Caims in the related civil action has been satisfied45
(c) “the petitioner"s iitness to practice" A.ll witnesses expressed the informed and experienced view that Mr. Caims is iit to return to practice. He has diligently and responsiny addressed the only cause of his suspension.
(d] "the petitioner’s overall competence and current awareness of recent developments in the law"
“ Transcript at 80 (Caims}. “ Transcrtpcac sr-ss (caims). "’ Transcript at 104 (Cairns).
Since February 2016, Mr. Cairns worked as a law clerk in order to prepare for potential reinstatement while scrupulously complying with the terms of his suspension from the practice of law. Ms. lanes confirmed his competence and awareness of recent developments, and her firm has demonstrated its confidence in his abilities by its willingness to take him back as a partner.
(e) “that the petitioners has not engaged in any other professional misconduct in any jurisdiction since suspension or disbarment”
Mr. Cairns has not engaged in any professional misconduct in any
jurisdiction since the accident that led to his suspension46
(t) “that the petitioner sincerely recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of any misconduct upon which the suspension or disbarment was predicated”
Mr. Caims testified crediny and convincingly as to his recognition of the mongfl.\lness and seriousness of the conduct that led to his suspension and to his remorse for the injury he caused." Other witnesses who have spent many hours with Mr. Caims in recent years corroborated his testimony.“
(g) “that the petitioner has the requisite honesty and professional integrity to resume the practice of law"
Mr. Cairns’s honesty and professional integrity have never been in issue.
Nevertheless, Mr. Caims has also convincingly demonstrated honesty and personal and
'° Transcript at 82-83 (Caims). " Transcrlpt at 92-95 (Cairns). " Transcript at 45-46 (Sceggs), 64-65 (Waldhauser).
professional integrity in his efforts to address the causes of his suspension and throughout
his period of suspension.“g
(h) “that the petitioner’s resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration ofjustice" Mr. Caims convincingly demonstrated his commitment both to his own rehabilitation and to the assistance of other members of the bar, and proved that his
reinstatement with not be detrimental to the administration of justice.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Panel is pleased to recommend that Mr. Caims be reinstated to the bar, having proven each element ofRule 22(g) by clear and convincing cvidence.
ODC supports reinstatement but suggests that to help to protect not only the public but Mr. Cai.rns himself the reinstatement be conditioned upon “very tailored, narrowed monitoring by DE-LAP" for a period of one year.’° There are substantial grounds in the record to conclude that such a condition is unnecessary. However, because Mr. Caims does not oppose such a conditions l and testified that he intends to continue under a monitoring agreement with DE~LAP in all events,s2 for the reasons
identi:lled by ODC, the Panel recommends that reinstatement cf Mr. Caims be subject to
" E.g., Transcript at 51-52 (Scaggs). 5° Transeript at 123-24. " Transcript at ll'l-lB.
” Tmnseripc ar 101 (caims).
ll
the condition that he continue under a monitoring agreement acceptable to DE-LAP i"or a
period of one year from reinstatement
Md/,,
v
Williarn T.Dcely. ~ q.
Gary W. Ferguson
Robert S. Saunders, Esq. (Chair)
ll lT$$»WlLSRD\A - MSW
the condition that he continue under a monitoring agreement acceptable to DE-LAP for a
William T. Deely, E.sq.
ary W. Ffrguson
12 al irshwusaclA-Msw
the condition that he continue under a monitoring agreement acceptable to DE-LAP for a
Williarn T. Deely, Esq.
Gary W. Farguson
[sl Robert S. Saunders Robert S. Saundcrs, Esq. (Chair)
ii al 1754-mama - tasw
Mont§omery, Wil|iam (Courts)
From: Saunders, Robert S
Sent: Tuesday. luly 18, 2017 7:57 AM
To: Montgomery, Wil|iam (Courts); cs|anina@delawgroup.com; Aaronson, t
Attachmer\ts: Doc_075147.pdf; A`l'l'DOOOl.htm
Bill and Counsel
Attached is the report and recommendation of the Panel in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything further.
Regards, Rob Sent from my il’hone
Begin forwarded message:
From:. Saundcrs Robert S Date: .luly 18, 20l7 at 7:5?.:32 AM EDT
To: Saunders Robert S Subjcct: Scanncd Document(s)
'l`his email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressce(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged andfor confidential information lt` you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited If you receive this entail in error please immediately notify me at (212) 73 5-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thercot`.
Further information about the tirm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request.