In Re Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
31 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation · Tyre v. State · In Re Reardon · In Re a Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware Figliola
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.