PCB 94

[07-Jul-1995]

                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


In re:	PCB File No. 95.15 


                            NOTICE OF DECISION

                             Decision No.   94


The stipulated facts in this case, which we adopt and incorporate as our own,
warrant a private admonition for neglecting a client.

Respondent had been a Vermont lawyer for nearly 10 years when he agreed to
represent Complainant in connection with certain child support matters.  He
obtained a $400 retainer from Complainant and then failed to communicate with
her for six weeks while he was reorganizing his law practice.

Complainant telephoned him at that point and gave him additional information
necessary to her case.

Complainant heard nothing further and telephoned him again after another
month had passed.  She made clear that she wanted him to resolve her case
within the next two months.  Respondent then sent Complainant an Affidavit of
Income and Assets.  She promptly completed and returned these forms to
Respondent.

Another month passed.  Complainant heard nothing from Respondent until she
telephoned him.  At this time, Respondent promised to take certain actions,
including contacting her, within twenty-four hours.  Respondent did not
contact Complainant. 	A few weeks later, Complainant contacted Respondent's
offices and requested that her retainer be refunded. She received no
response.  Complainant then contacted Bar Counsel who notified Respondent of
the complaint against him.  At that point, Respondent returned the $400
retainer to Complainant.

As a result of Respondent's neglect, Complainant, who was not receiving
necessary child-support payments, was financially unable to hire another
attorney to represent her.  She was unsure of how to proceed in these matters
and became understandably distressed.  Her lawyer was not being responsive to
her need for child support.  Eventually, Complainant was able to resolve
these matters herself.  Therefore, Respondent's neglect did not cause
permanent harm.

Respondent's misconduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him."

In mitigation, we find that Respondent has received no prior discipline from
this Board, is remorseful over his actions and concedes his mistake.  He has
cooperated fully and completely with these disciplinary proceedings and
attempted to rectify the consequences of his misconduct.

In aggravation, we note that Respondent has substantial experience in the
practice of law.

Section 4.4  of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions states
"[a]dmonition 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 or potential injury to a client."	

Given the isolated nature of this violation, the lack of actual permanent
harm, the remorse of the respondent and the other mitigating factors, we
agree with Bar Counsel's recommendation that a private admonition is
appropriate.

A private letter of admonition will issue.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this _____ 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/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Corsones, Esq.		Mark Sperry, Esq.


/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.