PCB 38
      
                         STATE OF VERMONT
                    PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
    
    In re:    PCB File 90.52
    
                         NOTICE OF DECISION
                              PCB  38
                         Procedural History

       A complaint was filed with the Professional Conduct Board  by a former
  client of 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 fact and conclusions of law.

                                Facts

       1.   The respondent is a member of the Vermont Bar.

       2.   For a period in excess of the last ten years, the respondent has
  practiced law as the sole partner in his firm, which has been called "(the
  respondent's last name) & Associates."

       3.   When the respondent formed his firm there were two associates
  employed by the firm.

       4.   At various times since founding his firm, the respondent has
  employed associates to work for the firm.
  
       5.   However, for approximately two years, the  respondent was the
  only attorney in the office.  During the majority of that period, the
  respondent employed a law school graduate who was not admitted to practice
  law.

       6.   During the time that the firm had no associates employed, the
  firm name had the effect of misleading the public as to the number of
  attorneys practicing in the firm.

       7.   The respondent was not aware that the name of the firm created
  any deception or misleading impression nor did he intend such effect.

       8.   When the problem was pointed out to the  respondent, he changed
  the name of the firm.  At that time, the respondent had a partner and they
  changed the firm name to "(partner's last name) & (partner's last name)."

       9.   There is no evidence that any member of the public suffered
  injury as a result of the misleading firm name.

                         Conclusions of Law

       The Board holds that the respondent's actions, as enumerated above,
  constitute practicing under a name that is misleading to the public in
  violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. DR 2-102 (B) (A
  lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a ... name that is
  misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under
  that name, or a firm name containing the names of one or more lawyers in
  the firm....).

       The Board finds that the respondent should be sanctioned for his
  violation of the Code and that the Board's admonition is an appropriate
  sanction in this matter.  Therefore, an admonition will issue.

       Dated in Montpelier, Vermont, this 13  day of , 1992.

                              PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
    
    
    
                              ___________________________
                              J. Eric Anderson, Chair
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Deborah S. Banse, Esq.         Hamilton Davis
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Anne K. Batten                 Nancy Foster
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Leslie G. Black, Esq.          Shelley A. Hill, Esq.
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Richard L. Brock, Esq.         Rosalyn L. Hunneman
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Joseph F. Cahill, Esq.         Donald Marsh
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Nancy Corsones, Esq.      Karen Miller, Esq.
    
    
    ___________________________    ___________________________
    Christopher L. Davis, Esq.     Edward Zuccaro, Esq.