IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE: EDWARD C. PANKOWSKI, Petitioner.
Submitted: October 1, 2014
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices.
Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chief Justice
This 13th day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that:
(1) By revised Order dated February 20, 2014 (attached), this Court reinstated the petitioner as a member of the Bar of the State of Delaware subject to certain conditions and limitations, including a two-year period of probation under the supervision of a practice monitor. On October 1, 2014, the petitioner filed a motion seeking to modify the conditions of his reinstatement. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has not filed any objections to the requested modifications.
(2) In his motion, the petitioner admits that he violated the Court's Order by working as a solo private practitioner handling criminal matters for the Office of Conflict Counsel (OCC). The petitioner also acknowledges that he further violated the Court's Order by failing to arrange for a practice monitor before returning to private practice, by failing to obtain malpractice insurance before returning to private practice, and by failing to notify the ODC before returning to private practice.
(3) Notwithstanding these violations of the Court's Order, and without offering any explanation for his violations, the petitioner requests this Court to modify the terms of our reinstatement Order. He asks that we create an exception to the prohibition on maintaining a solo law practice to allow him to represent clients referred to him by the OCC.
(4) We decline to do so. The Court is troubled that the petitioner returned to private practice in a manner that violated the Court's Order in substantial, myriad ways without first seeking leave of the Court to modify the conditions of his reinstatement. The petitioner's motion offers no explanation for the circumstances that gave rise to his violations of the Court's Order. Accordingly, we find no good cause to modify the terms of his reinstatement in the face of these violations. The petitioner may continue to practice law but only in accordance with the terms and conditions previously ordered. In future, should he move for a modification of those conditions, the motion must establish good cause for the requested modification and be accompanied by an affidavit reflecting his compliance with all of the conditions of the Court's February 20, 2014 Order and a detailed explanation of the circumstances leading to his admitted violations of that Order and why he believes that violating the Order was justified or otherwise excusable.
(5) Because of his violation of the February 20, 2014 reinstatement Order, the provision of that Order instructing the Clerk to "notify all courts that Mr. Pankowski has been reinstated, without a copy of this order" is modified. The Clerk shall now notify all courts of both this Order and the February 20, 2014 Order, both of which shall be matters of public record.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to modify the order of reinstatement is DENIED.
Submitted: November 6, 2013.
Decided: February 6, 2014
Revised: February ...