2 PRB                     

[28-Feb-2000]

                              STATE OF VERMONT
                     PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM


In Re:   	
  	PCB File No. 1999.149


                          NOTICE OF DECISION NO. 2


       Based upon the stipulation of the parties, which is accepted by the
  hearing panel, a  decision is rendered in conformity with said stipulation.  
  The board imposes the sanction agreed  to by the parties, a private
  admonition.  More fully set forth, the facts as stipulated are as follows:

       1. The Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice
       law in the State of Vermont.

       2. She was admitted to practice on April 9, 1998.

       3. On May 21, 1999, the Respondent appeared on behalf of
       a client in the Vermont  Supreme Court.

       4. During the hearing, Washington County Deputy Sheriff
       Chad Stacey examined a  duffel bag that had been left
       unattended outside the court clerk's office.

       5. Deputy Sheriff Stacey looked through the bag to see
       if it contained any identification.

       6. While looking through the bag, Deputy Sheriff Stacey
       found a lighter, a wooden pipe and  a small amount of a green
       leafy substance that he suspected to be marijuana.

       7. Deputy Sheriff took the bag away.

       8. When the hearing ended, the Respondent asked someone
       in the court clerk's if they had  her duffel bag.

       9. The Respondent was directed to Deputy Sheriff Stacey. 

       10. The Respondent was charged with misdemeanor
       possession of marijuana. 

       11. The bag belonged to the Respondent.

       12. The substance found in the bag was marijuana.

       13.  In the course of the criminal proceeding, the
       Respondent admitted that the bag was hers.

       14. In the course of the criminal proceeding, the
       Respondent did not contest that she  possessed marijuana at
       the time and place charged.

       15. While she did not contest the charge, the Respondent
       did not remember putting in the  marijuana in the bag. In
       fact, the Respondent had not used the bag in question for
       several  months.

       16. The State offered a diversion program to the
       Respondent.

       17. The Respondent successfully completed a court
       diversion program by doing 25 hours of  pro bono legal work
       and writing an essay for youngsters on the effect of someone
       of her  stature possessing marijuana.

       18. The fact that the marijuana was found in the
       Respondent's bag received a great deal of  exposure in the
       media.

       19. The Respondent has suffered personal humiliation and
       shame.

       20. The fact that the marijuana was found in the
       Respondent's bag did not adversely affect any  of her
       client's interests.

       21. The Respondent has never sought to avoid
       responsibility for her actions.

       22. The Respondent has cooperated with the Office of
       Disciplinary Counsel throughout its  investigation.

       23. The Respondent has expressed remorse for bringing
       negative attention to the legal  profession.

       24. The Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary
       history.

       In this case the Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(7) of the Code of
  Professional  Responsibility in as much as possession of marijuana reflects
  adversely on her fitness to practice  law.

       The conduct of the Respondent did not involve dishonesty, fraud,
  deceit or  misrepresentation, nor did it cause her clients any particular
  form of injury.   A number of mitigating factors are present in this case
  which the panel considered.  These  include lack of prior disciplinary
  records, her cooperation with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
  successful completion of a diversion program offered by the State's
  Attorney, expression of  remorse.  There are no aggravating factors.  A
  private admonition is imposed.

       Dated this   25th   day of February, 2000.

/s/
__________________________
Toby Young
/s/
___________________________
Paul Ferber, Esq.
/s/
____________________________
Robert R. Bent, Esq.

PRBDecisions/1999-149.decision2