PCB 88

[07-Apr-1995]

                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


In re:	PCB File No. 95.22 
		

                            NOTICE OF DECISION

                            Decision No.    88

This matter, presented to us by stipulated facts which we incorporate by
reference as our own, presents a case of improper representation of the
respondent's qualifications.

Respondent placed an ad which identified respondent as "specializing in
divorce and family law."

DR 2-105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer
shall not state that the lawyer is a specialist except in the areas of patent
or admiralty law ... or where the lawyer has met the requirements for
recognition as a specialist, as determined by the Supreme Court of Vermont." 
The Supreme Court of Vermont has not determined the requirements for
recognition as a specialist in family law.  Respondent's conduct clearly
violated DR 2-105.

When this violation was brought to Respondent's attention, Respondent
admitted the error and took steps to strike the advertisement.  In further
mitigation, we find that Respondent has no prior disciplinary history and has
been completely cooperative with these proceedings.

In aggravation, we find that Respondent has substantial experience in the
practice of law, having been admitted to the Vermont Bar nearly 15 years ago.

We know of no actual injury. The advertisement may have improperly influenced
potential clients in their comparison of the qualifications of lawyers
available to represent them in family matters.  The injury is perhaps best
expressed by the anonymous attorney who brought this violation to the Board's
attention:  "This ad is harmful to all attorneys who have refrained from
violating DR 2-105 in their respective attempts to obtain and retain
clients." 

Respondent violated a duty owed to the profession and did so negligently. 
Section 7.4  of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer recommends imposition
of an admonition in such cases.  Respondent and Bar Counsel agree that an
admonition is appropriate.

We direct the chair to issue a private letter of admonition to Respondent. 

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this _7th____ day of April 1995.

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


/s/
___________________________
Deborah S. Banse, Chair


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
George Crosby	                Donald Marsh


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


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



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


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Foster	                Ruth Stokes


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


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


/usr3/wsc/95.22dec