32 PRB

[25-Mar-2002]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD


       In Re: File No. 2001.184

                        HEARING PANEL DECISION NO. 32

       The within matter came before the hearing panel based on a Stipulation
  of Facts submitted by Beth DeBernardi, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel and
  Respondent. The parties requested the hearing panel's approval of an
  admonition by Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 8 (A)(5)(a) as
  the appropriate sanction. We hereby accept the stipulation and approve the
  issuance of an admonition by Disciplinary Counsel.

                              FINDINGS OF FACT

       1.  Respondent agreed to represent a client in an automobile accident
  case based on a one third contingency fee agreement which was reduced to
  writing.  During the following five months, Respondent diligently pursued
  the claim with the insurance carrier involved, but was unable to effectuate
  a settlement.

       2.  When it became clear that suit would need to be filed, Respondent
  advised the client that she would need to hire a firm which handled
  litigation to bring the suit.  The client followed  Respondent's advice and
  retained a firm which dealt with litigation matters.  The client told
  Respondent the name and address of the lawyer she had hired, and Respondent
  agreed to forward the file when asked.
   
       3.  When the replacement counsel called to obtain the file, Respondent
  initially said any work product from the file would not be provided, but
  eventually indicated a willingness to yield the file.  Respondent said that
  Respondent wanted to be paid.  New counsel communicated her belief that
  Respondent had not done much work on the file which was not accurate as
  Respondent had made substantial efforts on the matter.  Respondent
  responded strongly to new counsel and ultimately concluded the phone call
  by telling her to, "Go to hell."  Respondent's client then contacted
  Respondent personally to obtain the file by going to Respondent's home
  office to obtain it.  Respondent gave her a lien agreement to sign. 
  Respondent did not actually condition release of the file on execution of
  the lien, but the client believed that to be the case and executed the lien
  as a result.  The lien agreement itself was not unreasonable.

       4.  While in Respondent's office at that time, Respondent made
  deprecating comments about the new counsel which reflected on her youth.

       5.  Later, new counsel concluded that there were some documents
  missing from the file.  She wrote to Respondent for them but received no
  response from Respondent.

       6.  Respondent had substantial experience in the practice of law. 
  Respondent had no prior disciplinary record and cooperated with
  Disciplinary Counsel.

                             CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       The parties have stipulated that the above conduct reflects a
  violation of Rule 8.4(h) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct which
  provides that, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in
  any other conduct which adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
  practice law."   The Panel concurs with that stipulation and finds that
  Respondent violated Rule 8.4(h).    Deprecation of another lawyer,
  especially making unjustified comments reflecting such attorney's youth,
  which presumably implies criticism because of lack of experience, as well
  as rudeness toward that attorney reflect adversely on Respondent's
  judgment.  Likewise, the manner Respondent handled the turnover of the file
  and claim of a lien by allowing the two issues to be coupled in the
  client's mind reflects adversely on Respondent's judgment.

                                  SANCTIONS

       Under A.O.9 Rule 8(A)(5), an admonition is appropriate where the
  misconduct is minor, little or no injury results, and there is little
  likelihood of repetition.  The misconduct in this case was in fact minor,
  little or no injury resulted and it does not seem likely that the problem
  will reoccur.
   
  Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

       There are no aggravating factors which the panel considers
  significant.  Further, in mitigation, Respondent does not have any past
  disciplinary record and has been cooperative.

                                 CONCLUSION

       For the reasons stated herein, the hearing panel approves the
  stipulated sanction of admonition by Disciplinary Counsel.

       Dated this 25th day of March, 2002.

       FILED 3/25/02

  /s/
  ________________________
  Robert R. Bent, Esq.

  /s/
  ________________________
  Toby Young

  /s/ 
  ________________________
  Paul S. Ferber, Esq.