29.PRB

[Filed 12-Dec-2001]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                     PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM

       In Re:	PRB File No. 2001.200


                                    Order
                               Decision No. 29


       On July 18, 2001, Disciplinary Counsel filed a Petition of Misconduct
  against the Respondent.  The Petition charged the Respondent with failing
  to comply with a request that Respondent answer an ethics complaint that
  had been filed with Disciplinary Counsel. 

       The Respondent filed an answer to the Petition of Misconduct.  In the
  answer, Respondent alleged that there were reasonable grounds for
  Respondent's failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request.   At a
  pre-hearing conference held on October 17, 2001, Disciplinary Counsel
  agreed that the Panel could dismiss the Petition of Misconduct if the
  Respondent provided an affidavit setting out the reasons for failure to
  respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request.  The Respondent submitted an
  affidavit.  Having reviewed the affidavit, Disciplinary Counsel advised the
  Panel that he would not oppose a decision to dismiss the Petition of
  Misconduct.  

  I.	Facts  

       The Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
  Vermont.  In April of 2001, an ethics complaint was filed against the
  Respondent.  The complaint alleges facts that, if true, indicate that the
  Respondent may have neglected a client, failed to communicate with a
  client, and needlessly delayed pending litigation. 
   
       By letter dated May 4, 2001, Disciplinary Counsel asked the Respondent
  to file a written response to the complaint.  The Respondent did not
  respond and did not contact Disciplinary Counsel to request an extension of
  time to respond.  As a result, Disciplinary Counsel filed a Petition of
  Misconduct charging the Respondent with failing to comply with a request
  from disciplinary authorities.

       Subsequently, the Respondent submitted an affidavit explaining the
  failure to respond.  In the affidavit, Respondent avers that on June 12,
  2001, Respondent underwent surgery for a serious illness.  Respondent
  indicates that due to various hospital visits, Respondent missed work prior
  to the surgery.  In addition, Respondent states that the illness caused a
  great deal of stress and anxiety.

       The affidavit also indicates that, around the same time as Respondent
  was experiencing health problems, one of the Respondent's immediate family
  members was suffering from a life-threatening condition.  According to the
  affidavit, this added to the Respondent's stress, anxiety, and inability to
  attend to all of Respondent's professional obligations.  

       The Respondent concludes by indicating that Respondent's own health
  problems, coupled with the added stress that resulted from a relative's
  illness, prevented Respondent from providing Disciplinary Counsel with a
  response to the ethics complaint.  Respondent states that the surgery was
  successful and that Respondent has met with counsel and started preparing a
  response to the ethics complaint that Disciplinary Counsel asked Respondent
  to answer in May.  The Panel finds the facts in Respondent's affidavit to
  be true.

  II.	Conclusions of Law

       Discipline may be imposed if, absent reasonable grounds for doing so,
  a lawyer fails to respond to a request from disciplinary counsel.  A.O. 9,
  Rule 7D.  Indeed, Vermont's ethics decisions are clear: an attorney engages
  in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he or she
  fails to respond to requests from disciplinary counsel.  In Re: PRB File
  No. 2000.019, Decision No. 15, (Oct. 23, 2000); In Re Blais, PCB No. 118, 1
  VPCR 226, 227 (1997) (citing In Re Bailey, 157 Vt. 424 (1991)).

  III.	Discussion	
   
       The Panel agrees with the parties that the Respondent had reasonable
  grounds for not responding to Disciplinary Counsel's letter of May 4, 2001. 
  Specifically, both the Respondent and a close family member were in the
  midst of serious and significant health problems.  Perhaps the Respondent
  should have apprised Disciplinary Counsel of this situation.  Nonetheless,
  the Panel concludes that Respondent's significant family and health
  problems constitute a reasonable basis for failing to respond to
  Disciplinary Counsel.  Moreover, Respondent has begun to cooperate with the
  investigation process.  

  IV.	Conclusion

       The parties agree, and the Panel concurs, that there were reasonable
  grounds for the Respondent's failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel. 
  Therefore, the Petition of Misconduct is DISMISSED.

       Dated this November 29, 2001.		HEARING PANEL # 6

  /s/						/s/
  _______________________			_______________________
  Judith Salamandra Corso, Chair 		George Coppenrath
  /s/
  _______________________
  James Gallagher, Esq.  



       FILED DECEMBER 10, 2001