In re O'Meara

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considered reciprocal discipline arising from Timothy A. O’Meara’s disbarment in New Hampshire. The court rejected his due-process, evidentiary, and grave-injustice arguments and ordered identical discipline, disbarring him from practicing law in Vermont.

Holdings

1. When a Vermont attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, the Vermont Supreme Court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of the exceptions in Administrative Order 9, Rule 20.D is established.
2. Respondent failed to show that the New Hampshire proceeding was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard, or so infected by bias or other irregularity, as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
3. Respondent failed to demonstrate an infirmity of proof sufficient to prevent Vermont from accepting the New Hampshire findings of misconduct as final.
4. Imposing disbarment in Vermont would not result in a grave injustice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vermont was required to impose the identical discipline of disbarment imposed by New Hampshire under Administrative Order 9, Rule 20.
2. Whether the New Hampshire disciplinary proceeding deprived respondent of due process through alleged panel irregularities, possible bias, the participation of only four justices in the decision, or restrictions on the length of his brief.
3. Whether the New Hampshire findings were affected by such an infirmity of proof that Vermont could not accept them as final.
4. Whether reciprocal disbarment would result in a grave injustice.

Disposition

other