No. 523, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: December 7, 1999.
Decided: December 20, 1999.
REINSTATED.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HARTNETT, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 20th day of December, 1999, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On November 27, 1995, this Court suspended the petitioner Arlen Mekler for a period of one year beginning on January 1, 1996.[1] This Court issued another opinion in 1996, suspending Mekler for an additional period of not less than six months, to begin at the conclusion of the one-year suspension Mekler already was serving.[2] Mekler was entitled to apply to the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) for reinstatement after July 31, 1997.
(2) On August 13, 1999, Mekler filed with the Board a Petition for Reinstatement, and on October 6, 1999, the Board held a hearing on the matter. At the conclusion of the October hearing, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommended that Mekler be reinstated subject to specific conditions. In a report dated November 8, 1999, the Board found that Mekler had complied with the conditions for reinstatement and should be reinstated subject to the specific conditions.
(3) The Board having recommended reinstatement subject to a two-year period of probation with conditions, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Mekler having agreed to the conditions for reinstatement, and the Court having reviewed the report and the record before the Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, effective January 1, 2000, that Mekler be REINSTATED as a member of the Bar of this Court subject to the following conditions:
a. Mekler is subject to a two-year period of probation beginning January 1, 2000 and ending December 31, 2001;
b. Mekler’s private practice must be limited to family and criminal law;
c. Eugene J. Maurer, Jr., Esquire, will act as a practice monitor in criminal law matters, including, but not limited to, monitoring whether Mekler’s caseload is appropriate and whether deadlines are being met, with quarterly reporting to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel concerning Mekler’s compliance with the terms of his probation;
d. Norman E. Levine, Esquire, will act as a practice monitor in family law matters, including, but not limited to, monitoring whether Mekler’s caseload is appropriate and whether deadlines are being met, with quarterly reporting to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel concerning Mekler’s compliance with the terms of his probation;
e. Mekler must report on a quarterly basis to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that he is in compliance with the terms of his probation;
f. The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection will conduct semi-annual compliance audits of Mekler’s law office books and records;
g. Mekler must cooperate fully with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in its efforts to monitor compliance with the probation. He must respond promptly to correspondence from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel by established due dates, and he must cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the attention of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; and
h. If the Office of Disciplinary Counsel concludes, after giving Mekler an opportunity to respond, that Mekler has violated the terms of the probation, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may file a petition directly with the Supreme Court requesting that the Court suspend him.
BY THE COURT:
Maurice A. Hartnett, III Justice