Supreme Court of Delaware
In the Matter of Goldstein, 610, 2009
In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Delaware Supreme Court finds that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for respondent-attorney where a lawyer's ethical duties under the Interpretive Guideline for Rule 1.16 of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct arise any time a lawyer is representing an interested party in a residential real estate transaction, and the borrower or mortgagor is not represented by counsel, and respondent violated Rule 1.16 by failing to provide timely written disclosure to the borrowers.
Appellate Information
- Decided 03/15/2010
- Published 03/15/2010
Judges
Court
- Supreme Court of Delaware