Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary sanction imposed on attorney Norman R. Blais for repeated neglect of client matters and misrepresentation. The Court upheld a five-month suspension followed by probation, finding that the respondent's prior disciplinary history, multiple offenses, and aggravating factors supported the sanction.
Holdings
- The Court must accept the Hearing Panel's factual and mixed law-and-fact findings unless they are clearly erroneous or not clearly and reasonably supported by the evidence.
- The Court makes its own determination of the appropriate sanction, while giving deference to the Hearing Panel's recommendation.
- A five-month suspension followed by probation was appropriate and was neither inconsistent with Vermont precedent nor excessive.
Questions Presented
- Whether the five-month suspension was inconsistent with sanctions imposed in comparable Vermont attorney-discipline cases.
- Whether the two-month suspension jointly recommended by Blais and disciplinary counsel was sufficient to protect the public.
- Whether the Hearing Panel's sanction recommendation rested on unsupported findings or a mischaracterization of the record.
- What standard of review applies to the Hearing Panel's factual findings and sanction recommendation.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (9)
- In re Karpin, 162 Vt. 163, 647 A.2d 700 (1993)(followed)
- In re Anderson, 171 Vt. 632, 769 A.2d 1282 (2000) (mem.)(followed)
- In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 602 A.2d 946 (1991)(followed)
- In re Wenk, 165 Vt. 562, 678 A.2d 898 (1996) (mem.)(distinguished)
- In re Cummings, 164 Vt. 615, 669 A.2d 555 (1995) (mem.)(distinguished)
- In re Bucknam, 160 Vt. 355, 628 A.2d 932 (1993) (per curiam)(distinguished)
- In re Warren, 167 Vt. 259, 704 A.2d 789 (1997)(followed)
- In re Rosenfeld, 157 Vt. 537, 601 A.2d 972 (1991)(followed)
- In re McCarty, 164 Vt. 604, 665 A.2d 885 (1995) (mem.)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…