Directory Time Limits and Strict Accountability for Pro Hac Vice Admissions: The Delaware Supreme Court’s Decision in IMO John Du Wors

Introduction

In In the Matter of John Du Wors, the Delaware Supreme Court confronted a confluence of issues that are becoming increasingly common in a mobile legal marketplace: (1) the extent of Delaware’s disciplinary reach over non-Delaware attorneys admitted pro hac vice; (2) the procedural consequences of failing to answer a disciplinary petition; and (3) whether internal deadlines governing Delaware’s disciplinary machinery are jurisdictional or merely directory.

John Du Wors, a Washington-licensed attorney, obtained pro hac vice admission in Delaware’s Superior Court while simultaneously facing disciplinary proceedings in Washington. After falsely certifying that no such proceedings were pending and later participating in Delaware mediation while suspended in Washington, Du Wors was charged with multiple violations of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (DLRPC). A Board panel recommended disbarment. Du Wors’ principal defenses were technical: the panel report was issued “late,” and service of the disciplinary petition was allegedly defective. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments, deemed the petition’s allegations admitted, and ordered disbarment.

Summary of the Judgment

Outcome: The Court agreed with the Board on Professional Responsibility and DISBARRED John Du Wors from any future practice in Delaware.
Threshold Procedural Holdings:
- Time limits in DLRDP 9(d)(5) for the Board’s final report are directory, not jurisdictional; a tardy report does not compel dismissal (DLRDP 15(i) applied).
- Service by certified mail to the lawyer’s office and hand-delivery to the New Castle County Prothonotary (consented agent in Rule 90.1 certification) satisfies DLRDP 11(a) and due-process requirements.
- Failure to answer within 20 days results in deemed admission of all allegations (DLRDP 9(d)(2)).
Merits: Violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 5.5(c)(3), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) were established.
Sanction Analysis: Applying ABA Standards 3.0 & 8.1(b) and weighing aggravators (prior discipline, dishonesty, pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing), the Court held that disbarment is the presumptive and appropriate sanction.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court wove a dense tapestry of prior Delaware disciplinary decisions to support both its procedural and merits conclusions. Key cases include:

In re Fountain, 913 A.2d 1180 (Del. 2006) – confirmed that untimely answers justify deeming allegations admitted.
In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930 (Del. 2000) – emphasized strict enforcement of answer deadlines in the future; echoed here.
In re McCarthy, 2017 WL 4810769 (Del. Oct. 23, 2017) – disbarment of a pro hac vice lawyer for dishonest litigation conduct; establishes Delaware’s reach over out-of-state counsel.
In re Davis, 43 A.3d 856 (Del. 2012) and In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774 (Del. 2007) – reinforce that repeat dishonesty plus violation of prior discipline warrants disbarment.
In re Beauregard, 189 A.3d 1236 (Del. 2018) and In re Abbott, 308 A.3d 1139 (Del. 2023) – provide substantive examples of Rule 8.4(c)/(d) violations through misrepresentations to tribunals.

By aligning the present misconduct—which involved false court certifications and post-suspension practice—with these precedents, the Court signalled doctrinal continuity: dishonesty touching the tribunal or legal system is presumptively disbarable, especially for repeat offenders.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Directory vs. Jurisdictional Time Limits
DLRDP 15(i) declares that except where otherwise specified, time provisions are “directory and not jurisdictional.” The Court held that although the panel report was a “few days” late under DLRDP 9(d)(5), the Rules themselves bar dismissal as a remedy. Importantly, the Court distinguished between internal rule enforcement (possible sanctions for the tardy panel) and jurisdictional defects (which could void proceedings). This clarifies that respondents cannot leverage minor administrative delays to escape discipline.
Valid Service on a Pro Hac Vice Lawyer
Service via certified mail to Du Wors’ firm and hand-delivery to the Prothonotary was enough. The Court highlighted Du Wors’ own Rule 90.1 certification consenting to such service. Even if Rule 69 primarily addresses Delaware-licensed lawyers, the Court reiterated its “inherent and exclusive authority” over anyone practicing in Delaware, citing McCarthy and Tonwe.
Deemed Admissions Under DLRDP 9(d)(2)
Because Du Wors failed to answer within 20 days—and waited over three months to request leave—the allegations were conclusively established. The Court compared his procedural default (after explicit bold-type warnings) with the directory delay in the panel report, explaining why the two are not analogous.
Sanction Determination Using ABA Standards
• Duty Violated: To the public, the legal system, and the profession.
• Mental State: Knowing misrepresentation.
• Injury/Potential Injury: Erosion of public trust and integrity of judicial processes.
• Aggravating Factors: Prior discipline (Washington suspension), selfish motive, pattern, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing.
No meaningful mitigators offset these points; therefore disbarment under Standard 8.1(b) was “generally appropriate.”

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

Pro Hac Vice Regulation: Delaware will aggressively police non-resident attorneys. Expect heightened scrutiny of Rule 90.1 certifications and swift disciplinary follow-up on any misstatement.
Disciplinary Procedure: Lawyers can no longer bank on technicalities such as late panel reports to derail proceedings. The Court’s “directory” holding ensures disciplinary momentum.
Remote / Multijurisdictional Practice: Attorneys practicing nationwide must vigilantly monitor reciprocal-discipline obligations. Participating in ADR while suspended elsewhere now carries clear disbarment risk.
Board and Counsel Conduct: Although time limits are directory, the decision invites internal enforcement—potentially resulting in admonitions or policy changes—to expedite panel reports.
Client Education: Clients selecting out-of-state counsel will likely receive stronger advisories from Delaware co-counsel about ethical compliance and disciplinary transparency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Directory vs. Jurisdictional Time Limits
• Directory: A rule the tribunal should follow, but violation does not void the proceeding.
• Jurisdictional: A mandatory prerequisite—if unmet, the tribunal lacks power to act.
Pro Hac Vice Admission
Temporary licensure allowing an out-of-state lawyer to appear in a specific case; conditioned on truthful certifications and ongoing good standing elsewhere.
DLRDP
Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure – procedural code for lawyer discipline in Delaware.
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
A nationally recognized framework the Court uses to ensure consistency and proportionality in lawyer discipline.
Rules 3.3, 3.4, 5.5, 8.4
• Rule 3.3(a)(1): Candor toward the tribunal.
• Rule 3.4(c): Obeying tribunal rules and orders.
• Rule 5.5(c)(3): Conditions on temporary practice in mediation.
• Rule 8.4(c)/(d): Dishonest conduct & conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in IMO John Du Wors crystallizes two critical principles: (1) procedural deadlines governing disciplinary bodies, while important, do not give respondents a fail-safe escape hatch; and (2) Delaware will not tolerate dishonesty—especially from lawyers temporarily admitted under the grace of pro hac vice status. By labeling internal time limits “directory” and imposing the profession’s ultimate sanction of disbarment, the Court reaffirmed its paramount goals: protecting the public, safeguarding the administration of justice, and preserving confidence in the legal profession. Attorneys practicing across state lines should view this decision as a stark reminder that ethical obligations travel with them, and that Delaware’s disciplinary apparatus is both willing and able to enforce those obligations with rigor.