86 PRB

[Filed 28-Dec-2005]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD


       In re:     PRB File No 2005.250


                               Decision No. 86


       The parties filed a stipulation of facts and recommended conclusions
  of law.  Respondent waived certain procedural rights including the right to
  an evidentiary hearing.  The Panel accepts the stipulation and
  recommendation and orders that Respondent be admonished by Disciplinary
  Counsel for placing a false or misleading newspaper advertisement in
  violation of Rule 7.1 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.

                                    Facts

       Respondent is a partner in a two lawyer firm which placed an
  advertisement in the local paper referring to the firm as "[name] County's
  Premier Criminal Defense firm."  

       The partners cannot factually establish that they are indeed the
  county's "premier" criminal defense firm.  Respondent has no previous
  discipline.  This decision is issued in conjunction with the decision in
  PRB File No. 2005.188, the proceeding against Respondent's partner.

                             Conclusions of Law

       Rule 7.1 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct provides that 

       A lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications
       about the lawyer or the lawyer's services.  A communication
       is misleading if it: . . .

       (b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about
       results the lawyer can achieve, or . . .

       (c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyer's
       services, unless the comparison can be justified.

        
       In In re PRB File No.2002.093, Decision No. 55 (June 9, 2003, amended
  Nov. 19, 2003), affirmed by Supreme Court Entry Order,  January 12, 2004, 
  the hearing panel found that advertising which identified the attorneys as
  "experts" in certain areas created "an unjustified expectation about the
  results the lawyer can achieve." The advertisement in the present case has
  the same problem and compels the same result.

                                  Sanctions

       For the above reasons the Hearing Panel orders that Respondent be
  admonished by Disciplinary Counsel for violation of Rule 7.1 of the Vermont
  Rules of Professional Conduct.

  Dated December 28, 2005          

  Hearing Panel No. 8X

  /s/
  _____________________
  Peter Bluhm, Esq.

  /s/
  _____________________
  Robert Butterfield, Esq.

  /s/
  _____________________
  Tim Volk

  FILED 12/28/05