Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court accepted attorney Thomas B. Bailey’s voluntary resignation from the practice of law under Administrative Order No. 9 and ordered that he be disbarred. The disciplinary matter involved neglect of a client’s personal-injury claim, failure to comply with probationary mentoring and reporting requirements, and failure to respond to disciplinary proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should accept Bailey's voluntary resignation under Administrative Order No. 9, Rule 19.
- Whether acceptance of the resignation required disbarment subject to the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 9.
Holdings
- The Court accepted Thomas Bailey's resignation from the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court because it was submitted under Administrative Order No. 9, Rule 19, freely and voluntarily, without coercion or duress, and with Bailey's acknowledgment of the misconduct.
- Upon accepting Bailey's resignation, the Court ordered that he be disbarred from the office of attorney and counselor at law, subject to Administrative Order No. 9, Rule 19.
Key quotations
“Thomas Bailey’s resignation from the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court is accepted subject to the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 9, Rule 19.” (447)
“It is hereby ordered that Thomas Bailey is disbarred from the office of attorney and counselor at law.” (447)
Factual background
Bailey represented Scott Miller after a 1998 automobile accident but failed to file suit before the statute of limitations expired, despite telling Miller that he had filed a complaint. Bailey also failed to comply with conditions of his disciplinary probation, including maintaining contact with his mentor and submitting required monthly status reports. He did not respond to disciplinary inquiries or the misconduct petition, and he acknowledged that the facts constituted provable misconduct that could not successfully be defended.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel filed a petition of misconduct on February 4, 2002, and personally served Bailey on March 6, 2002. Bailey did not answer, and the disciplinary panel granted disciplinary counsel's motion to deem the charges admitted on April 1, 2002. Bailey then filed an affidavit of resignation, which disciplinary counsel supported with a statement of facts; the Supreme Court accepted the resignation subject to Administrative Order No. 9, Rule 19, and disbarred Bailey.