12 PRB

[25-Jul-2000]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD



  In re:  PCB File No. 97.28



                              DECISION   NO. 12

       A Hearing in this matter was held before Hearing Panel Number Two,
  comprising Michael Filipiak, Lawrin Crispe and Douglas Richards, on June
  28, 2000.

       Present were Respondent and his attorney. Michael Kennedy, Deputy
  Disciplinary Counsel was present for the office of Disciplinary Counsel.

       Before the Panel, for its consideration, was a Stipulation Of Facts,
  dated April 20, 2000, the Parties' Recommended Conclusions Of Law and
  Jointly Recommended Sanctions, dated April 20, 2000, and Respondent's
  Partial Waiver Of Procedural Rights, dated April 20, 2000.

       The Panel, first, considered Stipulation Of Facts and oral
  presentations by Respondent, his attorney and Michael Kennedy.

       The Panel, next, considered the Parties' Recommended Conclusions Of
  Law and Jointly Recommended Sanctions, as well as oral presentations by the
  Respondent, the Respondent's attorney and Michael Kennedy.

       The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of
  Vermont in 1981 and is currently on active status.

       In January of 1993, clients of the Respondent suffered damages as the
  result of a fire, with the damages being to buildings, equipment and
  livestock.

       The Respondent was retained in June of 1993 to assist in the recovery
  from an insurance company.

       The Respondent worked diligently in his representation of his client,
  making recoveries on their behalf in July and September of 1993.

       In the context of these recoveries, the insurance company refused to
  honor the damage claims for loss of the livestock.

       Based upon the insurance company's refusal to honor the losses of the
  livestock, a civil action was commenced against the insurance company in
  January of 1996.  The insurance contract between the Respondent's clients
  and the insurance company with a two year statute of limitations on its
  face set forth that the date for the filing of a claim had expired in
  January of 1995.  The civil action as commenced by the Respondent was in
  January of 1996.

       The liability insurance carrier for the Respondent's firm was
  immediately notified of the situation and ultimately there was a settlement
  of the outstanding claim for livestock with that insurance company.

       Commencing in April of 1994, the Respondent suffered an onset of
  emotional turmoil, resulting from a personal crisis, which lasted until the
  Spring of 1995.  During this period of time the Respondent had great
  difficulty focusing on his professional responsibilities.  The Respondent's
  clients, during this period, suffered from lack of attention during which
  the limitations period under the policy had expired.

       The Respondent at the times in questions, had substantial experience
  in the practice of law.

       The Respondent has no prior disciplinary record.

       The Respondent had no dishonest or selfish motive.

       The Respondent experienced personal and emotional problems during a
  substantial portion of the time periods in question.

       The Respondent's firm made a timely good faith effort to rectify the
  consequences of the misconduct.

       The Respondent has cooperated fully in the disciplinary process and
  the Respondent is remorseful.

       The Respondent's state of mind was one of neglect.

       The Respondent confirmed that he and his firm have, since this
  incident, supplemented and adopted an enhanced case management system.

       The Panel next considered the Parties' Recommended Conclusions Of Law
  and Jointly Recommended Sanctions, as previously filed and as presented at
  the time of the Hearing.

       After consideration, the Panel concludes that Respondent violated DR
  6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that
  "(a) lawyer shall not . . . . [neglect] a legal matter entrusted to him."

       By not noting and/or office-docketing the contractual statute of
  limitations for future reference by not tending to his clients' interest
  for a period of two years and by missing the statute of limitations,
  Respondent is in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3).

       On the matter of sanctions and as noted the Panel considered the
  parties' recommendations and oral argument.

       It is the Decision of this Panel that the sanction in this matter is a
  private admonition.

       Dated at Springfield, Vermont this   24th  day of July, 2000.

       HEARING PANEL NO. TWO

        /s/
  _____________________________						
  Douglas Richards, Chairman

       /s/
  ______________________________
  Michael Filipiak

       /s/
  ______________________________
  Lawrin Crispe