Opinion
Del. Ch., Civil Action No. 16640-NC
Submitted: August 20, 2001
Decided: August 22, 2001
Norman M. Monhait, Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross, Goddess.
Alan J. Stone, Morris Nichols Arsht Tunnell.
Grover C. Brown, Gordon Fournaris Mammarella.
Gregory V. Varallo, Richards Layton Finger.
Pamela S. Tikellis, Chimicles Tikellis.
Daniel W. Kranser, Wolf Haldenstein Adler.
James L. Holzman, Prickett Jones Elliott.
Harvey Greenfield.
Counsel:
The Court scheduled a settlement hearing in this case for November 9, 2000. At that hearing, Mr. Greenfield suggested by certain remarks that he had not been sent or had not received papers necessary to allow him to participate fully in the disposition of the settlement. This letter opinion addresses Mr. Monhait's application for a finding that during that November 9, 2000 hearing in the above case, Mr. Greenfield knowingly misrepresented to the Court that he did not receive certain settlement documents until June 23, 2000. After the allegation of a knowing misrepresentation was made, the Court, at Mr. Greenfield's request, set December 12, 2000 as his deadline to respond.
On December 8, 2000, four days before the date the Court expected Mr. Greenfield's response, Mr. Greenfield wrote requesting that the deadline be extended to on or before January 8, 2001 because he had been scheduled to settle litigation in Texas that week.
By letter dated January 5, 2000 [sic], Mr. Greenfield, knowing that his response was due on or before January 8, 2001, made a request asking this Court to advise him whether he should submit his response by January 12, 2001 or await this Court's decision regarding another outstanding issue of attorney's fees and expenses.
In a letter dated June 27, 2001, Mr. Greenfield requested "a little more time to respond to the allegations against [him]," because of a case in which he was "utterly consumed." Mr. Greenfield requested that the new deadline be extended to August 20, 2001.
On August 20, 2001, more than eight months after the Court set the original response deadline, Mr. Greenfield submitted his response. In it he explains that if he, in fact, stated at the November 9, 2000 hearing that he had been denied settlement papers, he actually meant to say fee and expense application papers. Mr. Greenfield contends that any error that occurred was "minor" and the result of the "flurry of papers" among the parties. He attributes Mr. Monhait's "determination to thwart" him as the basis for the claim that he misrepresented a material fact to the Court, which Mr. Greenfield describes as an "insignificant lapse." Other than several pages discussing the fees awarded him in numerous cases and with no further explanation of his misstatement that gave rise to the Monhait application, Mr. Greenfield requests oral argument.
In his application, Mr. Monhait seeks a finding that Mr. Greenfield misrepresented a material fact to the Court, a finding that could potentially expose Mr. Greenfield to disciplinary action. Assuming that Mr. Greenfield misrepresented a material fact to the Court, the issue becomes whether he gained a tactical advantage from that misrepresentation. Mr. Monhait neither specifies in his application the tactical advantage Mr. Greenfield gained by his misstatement that he did not receive the settlement papers until June 23, 2000 nor does he suggest any appropriate remedy that could be imposed by this Court if the misstatement, in fact, constituted a material misrepresentation. In fact, Mr. Greenfield gained no tactical advantage. Because Mr. Greenfield gained no tactical advantage, the Court makes no finding that he misrepresented a material fact to the Court. The only apparent reason to make that finding would be to set Mr. Greenfield up for disciplinary action, which is decidedly not the role of the trial court. While Rule 11 sanctions may be used to prevent Delaware attorneys from abusing the Rules for their own tactical advantage, trial judges may not entertain applications that are tantamount to requests for disciplinary sanctions absent misconduct which taints a proceeding and obstructs the orderly administration of justice. Mr. Greenfield's assertion complained of here gained him no tactical advantage, reaped no financial gain for himself or his putative client nor did it disadvantage other litigants. The legitimacy of these proceedings has not been threatened by his annoying requests for delay. Mr. Greenfiled's request for oral argument is denied. Mr. Monhait's application for a finding without a remedy is denied.
See Appeal of Infotechnology, Inc., Del. Supr., 582 A.2d 215, 220 (1999) (stating that the Rules of Professional Conduct "are to be enforced by a disciplinary agency, and are not to be subverted as procedural weapons").
IT IS SO ORDERED.