8 PRB

1-Jun-2000]

                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
  	


  In Re: PCB File No. 99.172



                               DECISION NO. 8

       A Hearing on this matter was held before Hearing Panel No. 2,
  comprising Martha Smyrski, Michael Filipiak and Douglas Richards, on March
  31, 2000.

       Present were Respondent and her attorney.   Michael Kennedy, Deputy
  Disciplinary Counsel was present for the office of Disciplinary Counsel.
  Before the Panel, for its consideration, was a Motion For Protective Order,
  Stipulation of Facts, Joint Recommendation as to Conclusions of Law,
  Recommended Sanctions, as filed by the parties.

       The Panel, first, considered Deputy Disciplinary Counsel's Motion For
  Protective Order, After oral argument by both parties, the Motion was
  granted.

       The Panel also considered the proposed Stipulation of Facts by the
  parties of the testimony of the Respondent and oral argument by
  Respondent's attorney and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel. Following those
  presentations, the Panel adopted as its Findings of Fact in this matter,
  the following:

       At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent was an attorney
  licensed to practice law in the State of Vermont.  She was admitted on June
  13, 1994.

       In 1995, the Complainant filed to divorce her husband.

       The Respondent took the Complainant's case with her after opening her
  own practice.

       On March 6, 1997, a Family Court entered a final Divorce Order that
  awarded the marital residence to the Complainant, free and clear of any
  interest of her ex-husband.

       The marital residence was, and is, located in Vermont.

       The Respondent, on behalf of the Complainant, was supposed to file a
  Quit Claim Deed with a Town Clerk's office reflecting the fact that the
  Complainant had been awarded the marital residence.

       The Complainant phoned the Respondent several times between March of
  1997 and October of 1998 to inquire whether she had filed the Quit Claim
  Deed.

       In October of 1998, the Respondent told the Complainant that she had
  not filed the Quit Claim Deed but would do so.

       In March of 1999, a wall at the Complainant's house collapsed.

       The Complainant and her two children were forced to wear extra
  clothing and blankets just to stay warm.

       The Complainant went to a bank to apply for a home improvement loan.

       The Complainant's application for a loan was denied because her
  ex-husband's name was still listed as a record owner.

       The Complainant called the Respondent to instruct her to file the Quit
  Claim Deed so that she could get her loan approved.

       The Complainant telephoned the Respondent on March 2, 10 and 25 of
  1999. 

       She telephoned the Respondent on April 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20,
  21, 22, 26 and 27.  She telephoned again on May 6 and June 3.  The
  Complainant did not speak to the Respondent during any of these telephone
  calls but left messages for the Respondent.

       The Respondent did not return the telephone calls.

       On May 18, 1999, the Complainant filed a Complaint with the Office of
  Bar Counsel.

       On June 17, 1999, the Respondent filed the Quit Claim Deed with the
  Town Clerk's office.  The Deed was recorded on June 18, 1999.

       The Respondent has expressed remorse.

       The Respondent has cooperated fully with the Office of Disciplinary
  Counsel.

       The Panel, next, considered the parties Joint Recommendation As To
  Conclusions of Law and arguments by both attorneys.

       After consideration the Panel concludes that Respondent violated DR
  6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to her.  Specifically,
  Respondent failed to ensure that a Quit Claim Deed was filed in the Town
  Clerk's office that reflected the file and Divorce Order awarding her
  client the marital residence, free and clear of her ex-husband's interests. 
  In addition, Respondent failed to return numerous telephone messages at her
  office from the Complainant.

       On the matter of sanctions, the Panel considered the parties separate
  recommendations.  It also heard oral argument by Deputy Disciplinary
  Counsel and the Respondent's attorney.

       It is the Decision of this Panel that a private admonition with the
  following imposition of conditions be imposed on the Respondent:

       Respondent shall, within six months of the date of this Decision,
  complete a continuing legal education seminar, or course, as prepared by
  the Vermont Bar Association, or an equivalent, on the law and practice of
  Family Law.

       Respondent shall, within six months of the date of this Decision,
  complete a continuing legal education seminar, or course, as prepared by
  the Vermont Bar Association, or an equivalent, on the law and practice of
  Law Office Management.

       Respondent shall, at the earliest practical date, apply for and attend
  what is promulgated and operated by the Vermont Bar Association for recent
  admissions, and as identified as "Rookie Camp."

       Respondent shall, forthwith, procure legal malpractice insurance with
  limits of not less than $500,000.00.

       Dated at Springfield, Vermont this 30th day of May, 2000.

       HEARING PANEL NO. 2
  /s/
  ___________________________________
  Douglas Richards, Chairman

  /s/
  ___________________________________
  Martha Smyrski

  /s/
  ___________________________________
  Michael Filipiak