Professional Responsibility Board Decisions

Digest Summary: On March 7, 2024, a hearing panel issued PRB Decision 256 in which it denied William Cobb’s petition for reinstatement to the active practice of law. The panel concluded that Mr. Cobb, whose license had previously been suspended (See, PRB Decision 247) had not met the burden required for reinstatement.  Mr. Cobb did not appeal and the Supreme Court did not order review on its own motion. As such, on April 10, 2024, the Supreme Court entered an order declaring that the hearing panel’s decision had become final.

Digest Summary: In May 2022, Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition to transfer the respondent’s license to disability inactive status.  On 9/28/23, a hearing panel approved the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the petition.

Digest Summary: Following a contested trial, a hearing panel concluded that the respondent (1) failed promptly to return unused retainers to two clients; (2) commingled client property with his own; (3) failed to maintain records documenting timely reconciliation of his trust account; (4) failed to maintain appropropriate trust account ledgers; (5) misled a client into thinking that the lawyer could withdraw immediately unless the client paid an outstanding fee; charged an unreasonable fee; and (6) provided false information to Disciplinary Counsel. 

Digest Summary: A hearing panel approved a stipulation in which the parties agreed that the respondent violated Rule 3.4(c) by failing to attend a final divorce hearing and Rule 3.1 by filing a post-hearing memorandum that purported to be based on what happened at the hearing.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel approved a stipulation in which the parties agreed that the respondent failed to research the law prior to filing a pleading and, upon filing the pleading that misstated the law, violated Rules 1.1 and 3.1.

Digest Summary: On May 31, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court disbarred Respondent for misconduct committed in New Hampshire.  On July 7, 2023, the Vermont Supreme Court entered an order reciprocally disbarring the respondent in Vermont.

Digest Summary: In an order dated May 7, 2021, the State of Maryland indefinitely suspended the Respondent’s law license. By order dated November 22, 2022, the District of Columbia did the same. The Respondent had a law license in Vermont.  Therefore, as required by Rule 24 of Administrative Order 9, Disciplinary Counsel notified the Vermont Supreme Court of the foreign orders.  On January 10, 2023, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a reciprocal discipline order in which it disbarred the Respondent.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel of the Professional Responsibility Board suspended the Respondent’s law license for six (6) months after concluding that the Respondent violated V.R.Pr.C. 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.  Neither party appealed and the Supreme Court declined to order review on its own motion.

Digest Summary: A panel concluded that the Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to assess an estate planning client’s competence to make informed decisions about the representation and disregard several red flags about the client’s competence.  As such, the panel suspended the Respondent’s license for 5 months. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered review on its own motion. On August 4, 2023, the Court affirmed the hearing panel’s findings of fact & conclusions of law. However, the Court increased the sanction, suspending the Respondent’s law license for one year.

Digest Summary: Disciplinary Counsel charged the Respondent with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s license has been suspended for longer than 6 months in another case. Therefore, Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent joined to request that the hearing panel dismiss the current charges. The panel granted the motion.

Digest Summary:

Update: On October 13, 2022, the Vermont Supreme Court issued an entry order adopting PRB Decision 247 in its entirety and as a final order of the Court.

Following a contested evidentiary hearing, a hearing panel suspended Respondent’s law license fora 15-months. The panel concluded as follows: (1) that Respondent’s license should be suspended for 6 months for violating Rule 8.4(d) by disclosing confidential juvenile records; (2) that Respondent should be reprimanded for violating Rule 1.1 by failing to provide competent representation to a DUI client; (3) that Respondent’s license should be suspended for 3 months for violating Rule 1.3 by failing to seek to modify a client’s conditions of release; (4) that Respondent’s license should be suspended for 1.5 months for violating Rule 1.6 by disclosing confidential information relating to the representation of a client; and (5) that Respondent’s license should be suspended for 3 months for violating Rule 8.4(c) by falsifying records submitted in response to a disciplinary investigation. The panel concluded that the aggravating factors warranted an additional 1.5-month suspension, bringing the total to 15 months. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered review on its own motion.

Digest Summary: Disciplinary Counsel charged the Respondent with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s license has been suspended for longer than 6 months in another case. Therefore, Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent joined to request that the hearing panel dismiss the current charges. The panel granted the motion.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel publicly reprimanded the Respondent for failing to competently handle two real estate transactions and for failing to comply with the trust accounting rules, with the result being multiple overdrafts to the lawyer’s trust account.

Digest Summary: The Supreme Court suspended the Respondent’s license pending the resolution of the investigation of multiple disciplinary complaints.  The Court agreed with Disciplinary Counsel that the Respondent had failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations, failed to cooperate with a trust account audit, and, as a result, posed a substantial threat of harm to the public.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel suspended Respondent’s law license for 30 days after concluding that Disciplinary Counsel had clearly and convincingly established that Respondent violated V.R.Pr.C. 4.2 by communicating with a represented person on the subject of the representation without the consent of the person’s lawyer

Digest Summary: The Vermont Supreme Court transferred the Respondent’s law license to disability inactive status after concluding that the Respondent’s medical condition left him unable to assist in his defense against charged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel imposed a 3-month suspension after concluding that Respondent violated V.R.Pr.C. 1.7(a)(2) by preparing for the client a deed that conveyed the client’s property to the Respondent; and (2) V.R.Pr.C. 1.8(c) by preparing estate planning documents for the client that conveyed substantial gifts to the Respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the panel’s findings of fact & conclusions of law, but then increased the suspension by two months to a total of five.

Digest Summary: The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Respondent’s current medical condition prevents Respondent from practicing law and ordered that the Respondent be transferred to interim suspension status. For an update, please see PRB Decision No. 247.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel suspended the Respondent’s license for 9 months after concluding that Disciplinary Counsel established that Respondent had failed to comply with a disciplinary investigation.

Digest Summary:

Digest Summary: A hearing panel publicly reprimanded the Respondent and placed the Respondent on disciplinary probation for 18 months. The sanction followed conclusions that the Respondent had failed to reconcile his trust account, failed to maintain required trust account records, commingled funds, failed promptly to disburse title insurance premiums collected at real estate closings, and failed to act with reasonable diligence when representing clients post-closing.  The panel concluded that a suspension was the presumptive sanction, but that the mitigating factors warranted reducing the sanction to a reprimand. The Vermont Supreme Court approved the panel’s decision and adopted it as its own.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel publicly reprimanded the Respondent after concluding that the Respondent failed to reconcile pooled interest-bearing trust accounts for months at a time. (IOLTA) The Respondent’s failure to reconcile the accounts resulted client funds being used to carry out other clients’ transactions.

Digest Summary: The Respondent was disbarred in New York for failing to cooperate with two disciplinary investigations.  The Respondent was also admitted to practice in Vermont.  Upon being notified of the New York disbarment, the Vermont Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline

Digest Summary: A hearing panel suspended the Respondent’s law license for 3 months after concluding that Respondent violated Rules 1.8(b) and 1.9(c)(2). Respondent represented the buyer in a land purchase. The seller was a former client who Respondent claimed owed an unpaid bill for legal fees. Without informing buyer, Respondent secured an ex parte lien and placed it on the seller’s proceeds of the sale, putting the transaction in jeopardy when seller balked. In addition, the Respondent disclosed information relating to the representation of the former client to the new client without the former client’s consent.

Digest Summary: Respondent, who was licensed in Colorado and Vermont, was disbarred from the practice of law in Colorado for multiple violations of the rules.  Respondent abandoned a client without accounting for her time or refunding an advance payment, charged an unreasonable fee to another client for whom she failed to provide diligent representation, knowingly made false statements to a client and opposing party, and failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by Colorado disciplinary authorities.  As required by the rules that govern Vermont’s Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Counsel notified the Supreme Court that Respondent had been disbarred in Colorado.  Pursuant to Rule 20 of Administrative Order 9, the Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred Respondent in Vermont.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel publicly reprimanded the Respondent after concluding that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct when by knowingly making numerous false statements in his capacity as the administrator of his law firm’s defined benefit plan.  The false statements were made to the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Department of Labor.

Digest Summary: On January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an order granting the Respondent’s request to dissolve an interim suspension that was issued in September 2017. See, PRB Decision 208. The 2020 order reinstates the Respondent to the active practice of law.

Digest Summary: A hearing panel sanctioned the respondent. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered review of the panel’s decision. The Respondent passed away before the Court rendered a decision. As such, the Court vacated the panel decision and dismissed the appeal.

Digest Summary: The Respondent was disbarred for engaging in dishonest conduct while attempting to purchase a home, practicing law without an active license, attempting to impede a disciplinary investigation, and engaging in dishonest conduct while participating in a disciplinary investigation.

4/25/2017

6/5/2018

Interim Suspension

Transfer to Disability Inactive