Matter of a Member of the Bar: Castro
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE: TABATHA L. CASTRO § § § § § No. 5, 2017 Submitted: April 5, 2017 Decided: April 12, 2017 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 12th day of April 2017, it appears to the Court that: (1) This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. On January 3, 2017, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed a report with this Court recommending, among other things, that the respondent, Tabatha L. Castro, be publicly reprimanded and placed on a period of probation for two years. A copy of the Board’s report and recommendation is attached to this order. (2) The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) did not file any objections to the Board’s report. Castro filed objections, contending that the Board’s recommendation of a public reprimand was based on its misapplication of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“the ABA Standards”) and its failure to give due weight to the mitigating circumstances in her case. In response, the ODC asserts that the Board did not err in holding that a public reprimand is the presumptive sanction under the circumstances and that, even considering the mitigating factors, a reduction of the sanction was not warranted and that a public reprimand was consistent with this Court’s prior cases. (3) The Court has considered the matter carefully. Castro admitted that she failed to properly maintain her firm’s books and records for three consecutive years, that she filed inaccurate Certificates of Compliance with this Court for three consecutive years, and that she failed to give her flat fee clients proper notice that the fee was refundable if not earned by her. We agree with the Board’s conclusion that a public reprimand was the presumptive sanction under the ABA Standards. We also agree that, even considering the mitigating circumstances, a reduction of the sanction was not warranted, and a public reprimand is more consistent with our precedent. (4) In a case involving similar recordkeeping violations, in which we found the mitigating factors to be “substantial,”1 we nonetheless were unpersuaded that any lesser sanction than a reprimand was justified.2 We held in that case: [A] public sanction affords the Court the opportunity to underscore how serious the Court considers a lawyer’s obligation to maintain orderly books and records. The failure to fulfill this obligation presents serious risks of harm to a lawyer’s clients. A public sanction also serves as an important preventive measure in cases such as this in which the violations could be readily repeated without prompt 1 2 In re Doughty, 832 A.2d 724, 736 (Del. 2003). Id. 2 detection. A public sanction puts clients on notice of past problems and allows them to take any steps deemed necessary to protect their own interests.3 (4) Thus, we accept the Board’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand with a two-year period of probation. We incorporate the Board’s findings and recommendation by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Board’s report is hereby ACCEPTED. Castro is hereby reprimanded and placed on probation for two years subject to the following conditions: a) Before filing both her 2018 and 2019 Certificate of Compliance, Castro shall be audited by a licensed CPA who is knowledgeable of the accounting procedures used for audits under Rule 1.15(d) and has attended the training offered by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The auditor must report on the status of Castro’s compliance or non-compliance. b) Castro shall provide the ODC with a copy of the required precertification. c) Castro shall pay the costs associated with the investigation of this matter by the ODC, including the costs of the Lawyers’ Fund audit. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 3 Id. at 736-37. 3 EFiled: Jan 03 2017 02:29PM EST Filing ID 60014876 Case Number 5,2017
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
