59 PRB

[24-Oct-2003]



                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD

                             Decision No.     59


       In Re:  PRB File No. 2003.271     

       On September 8, 2003, the parties filed a stipulation of facts as well
  as joint recommendations on sanctions and conclusions of law.  Respondent,
  who was represented by counsel, also waived certain procedural rights
  including the right to an evidentiary hearing. The Hearing Panel accepts
  the facts and recommendations and orders that Respondent, a sole
  practitioner, be admonished by Disciplinary Counsel for use of law office
  letterhead which indicated that he had associates, in violation of Rule
  7.5(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.

  Facts

       Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
  Vermont.  He was admitted to practice in Vermont in 1995.

       In June of 2003, Respondent's bank notified Disciplinary Counsel of an
  overdraft to Respondent's client trust account. Disciplinary Counsel wrote
  to Respondent and asked for a written explanation of the circumstances
  surrounding the overdraft.  Respondent provided a response on letterhead
  indicating that the name of Respondent's firm was "Respondent & Associates
  Law Offices," however, his explanation of the overdraft suggested that he
  was a sole practitioner. Disciplinary Counsel requested an explanation of
  the firm name and, through counsel, Respondent admitted that the name was
  misleading since Respondent did not have, and never had, any associates.
   
       Respondent has ceased using letterhead containing the name "Respondent
  and Associates Law Office" and now uses letterhead that accurately reflects
  his status as a sole practitioner. There is no evidence that Respondent's
  letterhead or firm name injured the public, the bar, or the legal system.

       Disciplinary Counsel concluded that the overdraft to Respondent's
  trust account was the result of an error that does not warrant a
  disciplinary sanction, but in conjunction with his consent to an Admonition
  by Disciplinary Counsel for using improper letterhead, Respondent has
  agreed to attend a CLE on trust account management within the next six (6)
  months. Respondent has no record of discipline and has fully cooperated
  with Disciplinary Counsel's investigation. 

  Conclusion of Law

       Rule 7.5(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct states that
  lawyers "may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other
  organization only when that is the fact."  A case similar to this arose
  under the comparable provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
  predecessor to the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, That case
  involved an attorney who practiced alone in a firm named "Attorney and
  Associates."  The Professional Conduct Board admonished the attorney for
  using a misleading firm name.   In re: PCB File 90.52, PCB Decision 38,
  (August 28, 1992).

       The Panel finds that Respondent has violated Rule 7.5(d) by his use of
  a letterhead which implied a partnership that did not exist.  The use of
  this letterhead also violated Rule 7.1 which prohibits "false or misleading
  statement about the lawyer or the lawyer's services."
   
  Sanction

       Admonition by disciplinary counsel is appropriate in this case.  The
  misconduct was minor and there is no evidence that Respondent's letterhead
  caused any injury to the public, the bar, or the legal system.  A.O. 9,
  Rule 8(A)(5).   Respondent has changed his letterhead and it is unlikely
  that the misconduct will be repeated.  In addition, admonition is
  consistent with the decision in PCB Decision No. 38.

  Conclusion

       Based upon the foregoing, the Hearing Panel orders that Respondent be
  Admonished by Disciplinary Counsel for violation of Rule 7.5(d) of the
  Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct. 

       In addition, pursuant to the parties stipulation, Respondent shall
  attend a CLE on trust account management within six months of the date of
  this decision.

  FILED:     10/24/03                       

  Hearing Panel No.7

  /s/
  _____________________________
  Richard H. Wadhams, Esq.


  /s/
  ______________________________ 
  Keith J. Kasper, Esq.


  /s/
  ______________________________               
  Samuel B. Hand