Matter of Sandbach

546 A.2d 345
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedAugust 31, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 546 A.2d 345 (Matter of Sandbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Sandbach, 546 A.2d 345 (Del. 1988).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) has recommended that disciplinary action be taken against G. Thomas Sandbach (“Respondent”), a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The Board’s recommendation for disciplinary action relates to Respondent’s willful failure to make and timely file Delaware Personal Income Tax Returns for five years. The operative facts and findings in this matter are not in dispute. The differences concern the appropriate sanction.

I

Pursuant to 30 Del.C. § 1161(1), and for all relevant time periods, Respondent, a resident of the State of Delaware, was a person required to file a Delaware Personal Income Tax Return. In October 1986, Respondent was notified by the Division of Revenue (the “Division”) that it had not received tax returns from Respondent for the calendar years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985. The total amount of taxes, interest, and penalties due and owing by Respondent to the State of Delaware was later determined to be approximately $7,000.00. Respondent did not dispute the Division’s findings and paid the calculated deficiency upon being so notified by the Division.

Shortly thereafter, following an investigation by the Attorney General, criminal charges were filed against Respondent for violation of 30 Del.C. § 1233 1 (willful failure to pay personal income tax or estimated tax) by a person required to do so under 30 Del.C. § 1161(1). 2 In February 1987, *346 Respondent entered a guilty plea in Superi- or Court to violation of section 1233 (an unclassified misdemeanor) for one of the five years noted and Respondent was fined $2,000.

II

In April 1987, Disciplinary Counsel of the Board on Professional Responsibility filed with the Board a Petition to discipline Respondent based upon the five separate violations of 30 Del.C. § 1233 through his willful failure to make and file Delaware personal income tax returns for the years 1980,1981,1982,1983, and 1985. The Petition charged that each of the statutory violations constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. 3 Four months later, Respondent through counsel answered the Petition, admitting all allegations of fact and conclusions of law. A panel of the Board held a formal evidentiary hearing shortly thereafter in August 1987.

On February 4, 1988, the Board filed with this Court its Final Report containing the required findings and recommendations and statement of mitigating and aggravating circumstances to be considered in determining the discipline to be imposed. Bd. Prof.Resp.R. 8(c); 9(d). The Board found by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent had “engaged in the course of conduct” of “willfully failing to make and timely file Delaware Personal Income Tax Returns during calendar years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985” in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the Board has recommended as an appropriate sanction Respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for one year, following by a two year term of probation on condition that Respondent perform a program of community service, hereafter referred to. The Board found the mitigating circumstances (Respondent’s full cooperation with the State authorities and Disciplinary Counsel, together with his ready admission of guilt and contriteness) to outweigh the aggravating circumstances of willful criminal conduct that would otherwise warrant “severe sanctions.”

Ill

On review before this Court, Respondent does not contest the Board’s findings of fact, conclusions as to his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or its recommendation of sanctions, with one limited exception. While Respondent does not object to the requirement of performing community service (initially his suggestion), he objects to being required to perform any service that would subject him to “further unnecessary public embarrassment and humiliation.” 4

After due consideration of the Board’s recommendations, the Court concludes that a more serious sanction is warranted by Respondent’s admittedly willful course of criminal conduct for an extended period of years. The Court views the relied upon mitigating circumstances as entitled to somewhat less weight than the Board has accorded them. Although Respondent has *347 fully cooperated with State authorities and the Board, such cooperation only followed Respondent’s receiving notification by the Division that it had not received various tax returns. Respondent did not initiate proceedings to rectify his unlawful conduct, nor did he admit his failure to file State income tax returns prior to the Division’s discovery of the violations. The Board has correctly stated:

It. has long been the rule in Delaware that any Member of the Bar who fails or refuses to perform his duties as a citizen may breach his standards of professional ethics so as to require disciplinary action. A lawyer who disregards his duty as a citizen by failing to pay income taxes fails to uphold the standards of his profession, irrespective of any conviction. See Bennethum v. Superior Court, Del.Supr., 153 A.2d 200 (1959), and In Re Bennethum, Del.Supr., 161 A.2d 299 [229] (1960).

The Court cannot overlook the repetitive nature of Respondent’s willful breach of a citizen’s minimal duty to pay taxes. It must also be noted that Respondent, over the years in question, apparently filed his federal income tax returns yet attempted to evade the requirements of State income tax law.

Having weighed all the pertinent factors, the Court concludes that Respondent’s multiple convictions under 30 DelC. § 1233, amounting to violations of Rule 8.4(b) of the Delaware Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct, require nothing less than a period of suspension from the practice of law greater than one year. Accordingly, it hereby is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Respondent be disciplined as follows:

(1) That Respondent be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of law as a member of the Delaware Bar for a period of three years, commencing September 6, 1988, subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) below; and

(2) That during the period of suspension, Respondent shall not: (a) share in any legal fees arising from clients or cases referred by the Respondent during the period of suspension to any other attorney, or (b) share in any legal fees earned for services by others during such period of suspension; and

(3) That Respondent shall arrange with another member of the Delaware Bar to protect the interests of any clients of Respondent during the period of suspension, and shall submit to this Court on or before the 30th day of September, 1988, a certificate of compliance with this paragraph, co-signed by the attorney who has undertaken the said assignment; and

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware
911 A.2d 373 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2006)
In Re Thompson
911 A.2d 373 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2006)
In re McCann
894 A.2d 1087 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2005)
In Re Shamers
873 A.2d 1089 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2005)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ayres-Fountain
838 A.2d 1238 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
In Re Garrett
835 A.2d 514 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2003)
Matter of Mekler
689 A.2d 1171 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1996)
In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware, Tos
610 A.2d 1370 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1992)
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Mitchell
418 S.E.2d 733 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1992)
In Re Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware
587 A.2d 1067 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1991)
Matter of Christie
574 A.2d 845 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
546 A.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-sandbach-del-1988.