In re Melvin B. Neisner, Jr.

2011 VT 35 (2011) · Supreme Court of Vermont · April 5, 2011 · No. 2011-127

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court accepted the Professional Responsibility Board's recommendation to reinstate Melvin B. Neisner, Jr. to the Vermont Bar. Reinstatement was conditioned on one year of probation, including pro bono service, weekly Alcoholics Anonymous attendance, monitoring, and compliance reporting.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice; John A. Dooley, Associate Justice; Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice; Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice; Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
April 5, 2011
Docket number
2011-127
Procedural posture
Petition for reinstatement to the Vermont Bar following a disciplinary suspension.
Standard of review
The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence the moral qualifications, competency, and learning required for admission, rehabilitation, and that resumption of practice will not be detrimental to the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.
Precedential value
Published Vermont Supreme Court entry order; precedential value is limited to the reinstatement determination and application of the governing attorney-discipline rules to the record.
Disposition
approved

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudication

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplinebar reinstatementprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied the moral-qualification, competency, learning, rehabilitation, and public-interest requirements for reinstatement under Administrative Order 9, Rule 2D.
  2. Whether petitioner should be reinstated subject to probationary conditions designed to protect the public and ensure continued rehabilitation.

Holdings

  1. Petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the moral qualifications, competency, and learning required for admission to practice law in Vermont, had been rehabilitated, and could resume practice without detriment to the integrity or standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.
  2. Reinstatement was appropriate subject to one year of probation, including appointment of a probation monitor, completion of at least 200 hours of pro bono legal services, weekly Alcoholics Anonymous attendance, and periodic compliance reporting.

Key quotations

The Professional Responsibility Board's recommendation that petitioner be reinstated as a member of the Vermont Bar, upon conditions, is accepted. Petitioner is reinstated as of the date of this order. (¶ 1)
shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning required for admission to practice law in the state, and the resumption of the practice of law will be neither detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest and that the respondent-attorney has been rehabilitated. (Standard for Reinstatement)

Factual background

Petitioner was convicted after a 2007 motor vehicle accident of several offenses, including felony impeding a police officer and providing false information to a police officer. His law license was suspended, and the Supreme Court ultimately ordered a two-year suspension commencing with the interim suspension and 200 hours of pro bono service. During the suspension, petitioner participated extensively in Alcoholics Anonymous, received alcohol counseling, worked as a paralegal, maintained continuing legal education, and presented evidence of rehabilitation and restored standing in his community.

Procedural history

The petitioner moved for reinstatement under Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order 9, Rule 22(d). A Professional Responsibility Board hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner satisfied the reinstatement requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 2D and recommended reinstatement subject to one year of probation and specified conditions. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and reinstated petitioner as of the date of the order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…