Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitjurisdictionlitigationattorneylawyer

lawsuitjurisdictionlitigationlawyerwill

Related Cases

In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930

Facts

The case arose from a series of legal disputes involving Shearin's representation of the AUMP Church and its President, Bishop Jackson, in litigation concerning church property ownership. Following a final judgment in 1993 that upheld the claims of the Mother African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church, Shearin was found in civil contempt for violating the court's orders. In 1997, Shearin filed a lawsuit in federal court that included numerous claims against various judges and attorneys, which were ultimately dismissed as lacking jurisdiction and merit. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel subsequently filed a Petition for Discipline against Shearin, alleging multiple violations of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct.

On September 1, 1998, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ('ODC') filed a Petition for Discipline against Shearin. The Petition alleged six violations of the DLRPC by Shearin. The events which led to the ODC's charges against Shearin arose from Shearin's role in litigation, which commenced in 1991, concerning the ownership and governance of certain church properties located in Wilmington, Delaware and elsewhere.

Issue

Did K. Kay Shearin violate the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct by filing a lawsuit that was deemed frivolous and in violation of a court order?

Rule

The court applied the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 3.1 (prohibiting frivolous litigation), 3.4(c) (prohibiting disobedience of court orders), 3.5(c) (prohibiting disruptive conduct), 4.4 (prohibiting unnecessary burdening of others), 8.2 (prohibiting false statements about judges), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Analysis

The court found that Shearin's actions in filing the Shearin Lawsuit were in direct violation of the established court orders and constituted frivolous litigation. The Board's findings were supported by the federal court's dismissal of Shearin's claims as 'shamefully frivolous' and the evidence presented by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The court concluded that Shearin's conduct demonstrated a disregard for the rules governing attorney behavior and the integrity of the judicial process.

We have concluded that the violations found by the Board are supported by competent admissible evidence. Nevertheless, we have concluded that the sanction recommended by the Board needs to be addressed further by the parties before a final determination is made by this Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's findings of violations of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. The court retained jurisdiction to determine the appropriate sanction for Shearin's misconduct.

The Board's judgment that Shearin violated four provisions in the Delaware Lawyers Rule of Professional Responsibility is affirmed. The Court will retain jurisdiction to decide upon an appropriate sanction.

Who won?

The Board on Professional Responsibility prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld its findings of violations against Shearin, indicating that her actions were not in accordance with the expected standards of conduct for attorneys.

Affirmed as to finding of violations; jurisdiction retained.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Lilyhorn v. Dier, 214 Neb. 728, 335 N.W.2d 554

In re Tsoutsouris, 748 N.E.2d 856

Felty v. Hartweg, 169 Ill.App.3d 406, 523 N.E.2d 555, 119 Ill.Dec. 799

State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Addison, 226 Neb. 585, 412 N.W.2d 855

State v. Stakes, 227 Kan. 711, 608 P.2d 997