Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 754 A2D 871 - In Re Benge

In Re Benge’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362

Relies on In Re Green · In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware Figliola · In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware Higgins · In Re a Member of the Bar of the State Mekler · In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware: Agostini

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system are to protect the public, to protect the administration of justice, to preserve confidence in the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. To further these objectives and to promote consistency and predictability in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Court looks to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as a model for determining the appropriate discipline warranted under the circumstances of each case. The ABA framework consists of four key factors to be considered by the Court: (a) the ethical duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) aggravating and mitigating factors.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. Respondent knowingly violated Rule 3.4(c) of the Delaware Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly disobeying a Suspension Order by (a) meeting with a former client to provide legal advice; (b) discussing legal services and fees with a potential client which led her to believe that his residential services company could provide legal services; and (c) using his former law firm email address in communications with the public at least six weeks after the suspension order; and that the aforementioned misconduct also violated Rules 8.4(a) (violate or attempt to violate the Rules) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and Rule 7 of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Disciplinary Procedure ("Procedural Rules") (disciplinary action appropriate for violation of the Procedural Rules); 2. Respondent knowingly violated Rule 5.5(a) by practicing law in violation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction when he met with a former client to provide legal advice; 3. Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 8.4(d) by failing to act with reasonable diligence and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he conducted a real estate settlement on November 5, 2008 while under the influence of alcohol; 4. Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) in reporting false information to a law enforcement officer regarding whether he consumed alcohol before a September 18, 2008 auto accident; 5. Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct invo”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) Respondent shall be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of law for a period of seven months beginning July 1, 2000 and ending upon his reinstatement for which applications may be made after January 31, 2001. (2) During the suspension, Respondent shall conduct no act directly or indirectly constituting the practice of law, including the sharing or receipt of any legal fees. (3) Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility. (4) Respondent shall arrange with another member or members of the Delaware Bar to protect the interests of any of his clients during the period of suspension and submit to this Court on or before August 1, 2000, a certification of compliance with this paragraph, co-signed by the attorney who has undertaken the said arrangement. (5) Upon his reinstatement, Respondent shall file with this Court a designation of address for the receipt of first class mail from clients, the courts and the ODC. In the absence of proof to the contrary tendered by Respondent, Respondent shall be deemed to have received all mail sent to that address, postage prepaid. In particular, Respondent shall promptly respond to all future inquiries from the ODC. In the event he fails to do so, the ODC may proceed to institute disciplinary proceedings based on a violation of the condition of reinstatement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re Guy

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.