70 PRB

[27-Jul-2004]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD


       In re:  PRB File No. 2002.194

                               Decision No. 70

       On June 2, 2004, the parties filed a stipulation of facts as well as
  conclusions of law and recommendations on sanctions.  Respondent also
  waived certain procedural rights including the right to an evidentiary
  hearing. The panel accepts the facts and recommendations and orders that
  Respondent be admonished by Disciplinary Counsel for using letterhead
  stationery that identified his practice as "Respondent & Associates," when
  he was in fact a sole practitioner, in violation of  Rules 7.1 and 7.5(d)
  of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.

                                    Facts

       Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
  Vermont and was admitted to the practice of law in Vermont in 1970.
  Respondent had employed a number of associates in the past, but has had no
  associates since sometime in 1997.  From 1997 to 2004, Respondent continued
  to use letterhead stationery which identified his law practice as
  "Respondent & Associates."  Shortly after the Office of Disciplinary
  Counsel brought this matter to Respondent's attention, he ceased using
  letterhead containing the name "Respondent and Associates," and his
  letterhead now 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. Respondent has no record of prior
  discipline and cooperated fully with Disciplinary Counsel's investigation. 
  Conclusions of Law
   
       Rule 7 .5( d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct provides
  that lawyers "may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or
  other organization only when that is the fact." In addition, Rule 7.5(a)
  provides that a lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other
  professional designation that is false or misleading. 

       This issue has been addressed twice by the Vermont disciplinary
  system.  In 2003, a Hearing Panel of the Professional Responsibility Board
  found that an attorney who identified his practice as "Respondent &
  Associates," when in fact he had no associates, violated Rules 7.5(d) and
  7.1. Decision No. 59 (October 23, 2003).

       An almost identical case was decided under the Code of Professional
  Responsibility. In that case the respondent practiced alone in a firm named
  "Respondent and Associates". The Professional Conduct Board admonished the
  attorney for using a misleading firm name, in violation of the Code of
  Professional Responsibility. Decision No. 38 (August 28, 1992). 

       Respondent' conduct falls squarely within these cases and we find that
  his conduct violated Rules 7.5(d) and 7.1 of the Vermont Rules of
  Professional Conduct.

                                  Sanction

       Both of the above cited cases resulted in admonition, and we find
  nothing in the record that argues for a greater sanction in this case. 
  Admonition is also consistent with the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
  Sanctions and Administrative Order 9.
   
       Section 7 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions deals
  with "violation of duties owed as a professional."  Section 7.4 provides
  that "[a]n admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an
  isolated instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed as a
  professional, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a
  client, the public or the legal system."  There is no evidence of any
  injury to a client, the public or the legal system.  The aggravating and
  mitigating factors do not alter our decision.  In mitigation, Respondent
  has no prior disciplinary record, ABA Standards, §9.32(a), and has
  cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings,  ABA Standards, §9.32(e). In
  aggravation, Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law,
  ABA Standards, §9.22(i), and was in fact a member of the Vermont bar at the
  time of the decision in both disciplinary cases addressing the issue of use
  of a misleading letterhead identical to his. This is not, however, of
  sufficient weight to raise the level of sanction beyond admonition.

       Administrative Order 9 provides that admonition is appropriate when
  there is little or no injury and little likelihood of repetition.  Here no
  injury resulted, and there is little likelihood of repetition since
  Respondent changed his letterhead when the matter was brought to his
  attention by Disciplinary Counsel.

                                 Conclusion

       For the above reasons the Hearing Panel orders that Respondent be
  admonished by Disciplinary Counsel for violation of Rules 7.1 and 7.5(d) of
  the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.


  FILED: July 27, 2004                         

  Hearing Panel No. 10

  /s/
  _________________________
  Lon T. McClintock, Esq.

  /s/
  __________________________
  Marianne Kennedy, Esq.
  
  /s/
  __________________________
  Donald Keelan