PCB 65

[01-Apr-1994]

                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD



In re:  PCB File No. 93.14


                            NOTICE OF DECISION

                                 NO.   65


This matter came before us by way of stipulated facts presented by Bar
Counsel and Respondent.  In addition, we heard argument from both parties at
a hearing held February 4, 1994 pursuant to Administrative Order 9, Rule
8(D), and considered the parties joint recommendation as to conclusions of
law and sanctions. 

Based upon all the relevant, credible information presented, we find that
Respondent has been a member of the Vermont bar for over thirty years.  He
was previously disciplined more than ten years ago. Otherwise, he has no
other record of professional misconduct.

The current matter arose out of his negligent handling of an estate in which
he was appointed administrator in late 1990.  Although Respondent was timely
in publishing the notice to creditors, Respondent was not timely in filing an
inventory of the estate nor did he file a motion for an extension in which to
file the inventory. Despite a reminder from the probate court that the
inventory was long overdue, Respondent did not file it until over two years
after it was due.  

Just prior to Respondent's appointment as administrator, a creditor filed a
claim against the estate for a sum of money.  Respondent filed a disallowance
of the claim a few months later and, after a hearing, the claim was
disallowed.  Although the probate judge instructed Respondent to draft an
order to that effect and file it with the court, the Respondent did not do so
until six months later.  The delay was due to the fact that Respondent was
making an effort during this time to follow the instructions of the heirs who
wanted Respondent to find some means of paying this creditor a just amount of
the debt.

Respondent was required by law to file an accounting of the estate within one
year of his appointment.  At a minimum, Respondent was required to file an
interim accounting.  Although the probate judge reminded Respondent to file
either a final or interim accounting, and although the probate judge issued
two notices to comply with the rules, Respondent did not file the required
accounting until three years after he was appointed administrator.

Among the estate's assets were two parcels of land.  One was sold
approximately a year and a half after Respondent was appointed administrator.
The other was sold approximately two and a half years after Respondent was
appointed administrator.   Although Respondent maintains the belief that the
properties did not sell because of the decline in the housing market during
the time period, Respondent did not adequately market the properties in a
reasonable attempt to expedite their sale at an acceptable price.  The delay
in their sale was a direct cause of the long delay in the probate of the
estate.

Individual items of personal property were ultimately appraised for little or
no value.  Respondent permitted the release of some small, seemingly
valueless items to individual heirs without permission of all heirs and
before appraisal.  While this release caused consternation among several of
the heirs, we find that Respondent acted reasonably under the circumstances.

The final decree was signed over three years after Respondent was appointed
administrator.  The appeal period is currently open.

Several of the heirs, all of whom live out-of-state, contacted Respondent on
several occasions over the years to inquire and complain that the process was
taking so long, as they were in need of the money due to them from the
estate.  Respondent spent considerable energy responding to their concerns. 
The final accounting reflected that the estate was valued at almost $118,000. 
The total value of the estate was not diminished over the time period.

Initially, Respondent was not totally cooperative with the disciplinary
proceedings.  Respondent failed to respond to many of Bar Counsel's letters,
requiring follow-up letters to be sent.  When Respondent did respond to Bar
Counsel's inquiries, quite often he was beyond the imposed deadline. 
Respondent did meet with Bar Counsel's investigator in June 1993 in a timely
manner after request.  He was fully cooperative in the interview.  Respondent
explained his neglect in meeting statutory and court-imposed deadlines and
his neglect of Bar Counsel's inquiries was the result of being overworked. 
In his appearance before the Board, Respondent was co-operative and sincere.

We find that Respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3)(a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him) and privately admonish Respondent
for this violation.  In issuing this private admonition, we rely upon ABA
Standard 4.44 which provides, in pertinent part:

Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not
act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or
no actual potential injury to a client.


Dated at Montpelier this 1st  day of April, 1994.

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
	
			/s/		
			Deborah S. Banse, Chair


         /s/                                 /s/
Anne K. Batten				     Donald Marsh


                                             /s/
Joseph F. Cahill, Esq.              	     Karen Miller, Esq.


                                             /s/
Nancy Corsones, Esq.			     J. Garvan Murtha, Esq.


                         
Paul S. Ferber, Esq.  			     Robert F. O'Neill, Esq. 
                    

          /s/                                /s/
Nancy Foster				     Ruth Stokes


          /s/                                /s/
Rosalyn L. Hunneman			     Jane Woodruff, Esq.

	
                                             /s/
Robert P. Keiner, Esq.			     Edward Zuccaro, Esq.