PCB 26

[14-Feb-1992]

                           STATE OF VERMONT
     
                      PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
     
     
     In re:    PCB No. 88.77
     
     
     
                          NOTICE OF DECISION
                               PCB  26 
     
     
                          Procedural History
     
     
          A complaint was filed with the Professional Conduct
     Board by a bank officer who had professional dealings with
     the respondent.  Bar Counsel investigated this matter and,
     as a result of the investigation, entered into the
     stipulation of facts with the respondent.  The Professional
     Conduct Board reviewed the stipulation of facts, conclusions
     of law, and recommendation to the Professional Conduct
     Board.
          The Professional Conduct Board accepted that
     stipulation and hereby incorporates it into the following
     findings of facts and conclusions of law.
     
                                Facts
          1.  In 1987, the respondent was an attorney admitted  
     to practice in the State of Vermont and engaged in private
     practice.
          2.  During the course of said practice, the respondent
     represented a client in securing a mortgage loan from a
     bank.
          3.  As a part of said representation, the respondent
     was responsible for delivering a corrected mortgage deed and
     final title insurance policy to the bank.
          4. The respondent failed to deliver either document to
     the bank, despite repeated requests that he do so.
          5. The respondent left private practice and obtained 
     a position in the public sector.
          6.  At the time that the respondent changed his
       position, he had not delivered the corrected mortgage deed
       or final title insurance policy nor made arrangements for
       their preparation and delivery.
          7.  The problem was resolved only after this complaint
     was filed and the bar counsel reviewed the matter with the
     respondent.
     
                          Conclusions of Law
          The Board holds that the respondent's actions, as
     enumerated above, constitute the neglect of a legal matter
     in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  DR
     6-101 (A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him).
          The Board agrees with the stipulation of bar counsel
     and the respondent that the appropriate sanction in this
     case is a private admonition.  A private admonition will
     therefore issue.
     
                                  2
          Dated in Montpelier, Vermont, this 14th day of
     February, 1992.
                                   
                                   
                                 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
     
     
                            By:  /s/                         
                                 J. Eric Anderson, Chair
     
     
     /s/                                                        
     Deborah S. Banse, Esq.      Hamilton Davis
     
     
     /s/                         /s/                            
     Anne K. Batten              Nancy Foster
     
     
     /s/                         /s/                            
     Leslie G. Black, Esq.       Shelley Hill, Esq.
     
     
     /s/                         /s/                            
     Richard L. Brock, Esq.      Rosalyn L. Hunneman
     
     
                                 /s/                            
     Joseph F. Cahill, Jr., Esq. Donald Marsh
     
     
     /s/                         /s/                            
     Nancy Corsones, Esq.        Karen Miller, Esq.
     
     /s/                         /s/                            
     Christopher L. Davis, Esq.  Edward Zuccaro, Esq.