PCB 92

[07-Jul-1995]


                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD

IN RE:  	PCB File No. 93.48

                            NOTICE OF DECISION
                              DECISION NO. 92


This matter was presented to us by stipulation between Respondent and Special
Bar Counsel, William M. Dorsch.  We adopt the stipulated facts as our own and
impose a private admonition.

This case concerns the Respondent's neglect of a post-divorce matter.  The
Complainant retained Respondent in 1991 after Complainant's former wife filed
a Motion to Modify the final divorce order, seeking custody of their two
minor children.   The Family Court granted the motion and Respondent filed an
appeal. 

The Family Court initially scheduled a hearing to establish Complainant's
child support obligations and then rescheduled the hearing to allow time to
obtain additional information.  The Court notified Respondent of the new date
and time.  Respondent, however, failed to so notify his client who,
accordingly, failed to appear at the support hearing.

As a result of Respondent's failure to attend the rescheduled hearing, the
Court entered a support order without the benefit of any evidence or argument
from Complainant or his counsel.

Later, the Vermont Supreme Court notified Respondent that he was obliged to
order the transcript of the hearing which he was appealing on behalf of his
client.  Respondent failed to do so and, as a result, his client's case was
dismissed.

Respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3).  This is the second time he has
been disciplined for client neglect.  See PCB File 91.12, Decision No. 43
(December 4, 1992).  Under normal circumstances, this case would warrant
imposition of public discipline.  However, there are additional circumstances
in this case which lead us to agree with recommendation of both Respondent
and Special Bar Counsel to impose only a private admonition.

Respondent has been a member of the Vermont Bar for nearly 20 years.  In the
early 1990's, Respondent became seriously ill.  The illness so interfered
with Respondent's ability to practice law that he stopped practicing law in
1993.  Respondent is currently on inactive status and intends never to
reactivate his license to practice law.  

Given that Respondent has removed himself from the practice of law,
imposition of a public sanction would achieve nothing but the public
humiliation of Respondent to the detriment of Respondent's health.  Further,
Respondent agrees that should he ever seek to reactivate his law license in
Vermont or any other jurisdiction, this Board is free to recommend to the
Vermont Supreme Court that a public reprimand be imposed in this case. 
Respondent will not oppose that recommendation.  For all of these reasons, a
private admonition will issue.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this    7th    day of July, 1995.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


/s/
___________________________
Deborah S. Banse, Chair

/s/
___________________________	___________________________
George Crosby			Donald Marsh



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

      
/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Corsones, Esq.		Mark Sperry, Esq.


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


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Foster			Ruth Stokes


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


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Robert P. Keiner, Esq.		Charles Cummings, Esq.



/usr3/wsc/9348.dec