Pro Hac Attorney Referred For Investigation
The Delaware Court of Chancery referred a pro hac vice admitted attorney to state Disciplinary Counsel for investigation
As indicated in the court’s March 11, 2025 letter to counsel, the court learned earlier this week that Dimitry Joffe, Esquire, who is admitted pro hac vice and is Plaintiff’s lead trial counsel, was the subject of disciplinary proceedings in Massachusetts and New York during the pendency of this action. Specifically, by order dated September 7, 2021 (approximately 16 months after Mr. Joffe was admitted pro hac vice in this action), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Joffe engaged in litigation-related misconduct that resulted in “five violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.” The Massachusetts federal court directed Mr. Joffe to file both the order that articulated the court’s findings and the referral order that initiated the disciplinary proceedings “with each court of which Joffe is presently a member of the bar” and to do so “for the next five years . . . with each court before which he presently appears or seeks to appear pro hac vice and with each court to which he seeks admission to the bar.”
Based upon the disciplinary action taken in Massachusetts, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department in New York sought and obtained an order seeking reciprocal discipline against Mr. Joffe in 2023. After Mr. Joffe “mounted a full and vigorous defense,” the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, determined that “the appropriate sanction is public censure of respondent, which is both commensurate with the discipline imposed by the [Massachusetts] federal court and in accord with [New York’s] precedent involving comparable misconduct.”
After the court learned of the Massachusetts and New York disciplinary orders, the court inquired of Plaintiff’s Delaware counsel as to whether the orders were reported to the Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“Delaware ODC”). In a letter to the court on March 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s Delaware counsel stated that “Delaware counsel has not reported the results of those proceedings to the Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel because Delaware counsel was not aware of, nor informed of, those proceedings.”
There apparently was no such report notwithstanding a letter proferred by counsel
Even accepting that the November 29 Form of Letter, along with the Massachusetts court’s order and the referral order, was delivered to the Register in Chancery, at no time did Mr. Joffe inform his corresponding Delaware counsel, the presiding judicial officer in this action, or the Delaware ODC of the disciplinary orders entered in Massachusetts. And at no time did Mr. Joffe inform his corresponding Delaware counsel, the Register in Chancery, this judicial officer, or the Delaware ODC of the New York disciplinary order.
In light of these events
The court has determined that the events described above warrant a referral to the Delaware ODC. Accordingly, the trial in this action, which had been scheduled for next week, has been removed from the court’s calendar, and this action is stayed pending further order of the court.
(Mike Frisch)