An attorney representing a Delaware agency has requested the state’s Supreme Court to dismiss a former Morris James LLP paralegal’s appeal for an en banc review to revive his unemployment benefits claim after he agreed to leave the firm.
Del Paralegal En Banc Call : Opposition to En Banc Request
In a letter to the Supreme Court’s clerk on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Victoria W. Counihan, who represents the Delaware Department of Labor’s Division of Unemployment Insurance in the pay dispute, argued that William Weller’s latest motion was untimely. Weller, a former paralegal at Morris James LLP for two decades, has appealed a lower court ruling affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision, which found him ineligible for unemployment benefits from Sept. 17, 2022, to Sept. 2, 2023.
Weller’s request for an en banc consideration comes “two months after the completion of briefing and a month and a half after submission of the matter for decision on the briefs,” Counihan stated. “The division would like to note its opposition to the motion,” she wrote. “The matter has already been submitted for decision on the briefs, and the court found no basis for en banc consideration ab initio.”
Del Paralegal En Banc Call : Claims of Misconduct
Weller filed a motion on Monday, arguing that en banc consideration would “benefit the parties, the public, as well as the integrity of the bar.” He alleged misconduct by Morris James and its attorneys that impacted his appeal and multiple proceedings, causing harm to him, the public, and the integrity of the state’s bar. An affidavit detailing the alleged misconduct was filed under seal, but Weller contended that it was “the underlying basis of the settlement payment” to resolve his whistleblower claims against the firm, which is central to his unemployment pay dispute.
Legal Arguments
Counihan countered that Weller’s en banc request was misguided. “Appellant has not articulated any legitimate basis for a request for en banc consideration at this stage of the appeal or at any time,” she wrote. “His arguments in the motion relate to the substance of matters that the board concluded it did not need to consider and which are therefore outside the scope of the issues on appeal.”
