Reciprocal Disability Transfer To Inactive Status Ordered
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has imposed reciprocal transfer to disability status based on a transfer to disability inactive status that had been ordered by the Delaware Supreme Court.
The Delaware court described the genesis of the disability proceeding
On September 21, 2020, Kelly filed a nearly 500-paragraph complaint against then-President Donald Trump in the Court of Chancery. Kelly alleged that Trump had violated the First Amendment by creating the illusion of government sponsored religion, burdening her free exercise of religion, and adopting Executive Order 13798. She also filed a motion to expedite and a motion for a temporary restraining order. Kelly subsequently filed two amended complaints. On November 2, 2020, a Master in Chancery issued a final report recommending dismissal of the complaint as legally frivolous under 10 Del. C. § 8803(c). Kelly filed exceptions, which a Vice Chancellor overruled.
After an unsuccessful appeal of the dismissal, the attorney had sought but been denied certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court.
In the Delaware disability matter
On August 23, 2021, [Office of Disciplinary Counsel] informed Kelly that the contents of her filings in the Trump action raised serious concerns regarding her mental capacity and fitness to practice law. Based on these concerns, ODC asked Kelly to voluntarily submit to a mental health examination to determine her mental capacity and fitness to practice law. ODC advised that if Kelly if did not undergo the examination scheduled for September 7, 2021, ODC would petition the Board to order such an examination. In response, Kelly ordered ODC to stop contacting her and stated that she would not undergo a mental health evaluation because it was against her religious beliefs.
Ultimate ruling
It is the unfocused, irrelevant, and incoherent nature of many of Kelly’s submissions that led to this proceeding, not her religious or political beliefs as she contends. Kelly’s references to her religious and political views throughout her submissions do not shield her from scrutiny concerning her competency to practice law. States have an “an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the processional [sic] conduct of the attorneys” they license. In the exercise of this Court’s exclusive responsibility to supervise and regulate Bar members, we have determined that a physical or mental condition has adversely affected Kelly’s ability to practice law, Kelly is incapacitated from continuing to practice law, and Kelly must be transferred to disability inactive status.
From the Court of Chancery dismissal order
Kelly’s main theory of her case is that Trump creates the illusion of being a devout Christian, while engaging in acts that Kelly contends are against the main tenets of Christianity. She claims that his actions substantially burden and injure her “free exercise of religion” causing her “eternal harm” and “chilling [her] free exercise of religion by [his] increased threat of government sponsored religious persecution and, or the actual government sponsored persecution for [her] attempts to freely exercise [her] religion.” Kelly alleges that, through Trump’s deception, he is misleading people, deceiving them to sin, and dooming them to hell. The primary harm Kelly claims is that, because Trump is leading people to hell, Kelly will not be able to love them for eternity. She also alleges that she is persecuted, and her religious belief chilled, because of Trump’s support for one religious belief, and suppression of others, which substantially burdens her freedom to exercise her faith.
Grounds for dismissal
It is clear that Kelly has strong religious beliefs and is sincere in her convictions. However, this Court cannot grant the relief she desires. Kelly lacks standing to bring this action because she has not alleged a personal, concrete and particularized harm, or damages, resulting from Trump’s actions, and has not shown that a decision in her favor is likely to remedy the harm. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is legally frivolous.
(Mike Frisch)