In re S.C., Juvenile & In re D.S., Juvenile

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether appointed appellate counsel may withdraw from appeals of termination-of-parental-rights judgments because counsel believes the appeals lack merit under Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1. The Court held that, absent client consent or other compelling circumstances, appointed appellate counsel generally may not withdraw in such proceedings, emphasizing the importance of meaningful representation and the parent-child relationship. The Court denied the withdrawal motions in both cases.

Holdings

1. Absent client consent or other compelling circumstances, appointed appellate counsel may not withdraw from a termination-of-parental-rights appeal solely because counsel believes the appeal lacks merit or that continued representation may involve an argument that does not satisfy Rule 3.1.
2. An attorney's good-faith presentation of pertinent facts and controlling law favorable to the client does not violate Rule 3.1 merely because counsel believes the client's position will not prevail; counsel must nevertheless comply with the duty of candor to the tribunal.
3. The court did not decide whether appointed appellate counsel's inability to contact or communicate with a client after diligent efforts could constitute a compelling circumstance permitting withdrawal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appointed appellate counsel may withdraw from a termination-of-parental-rights appeal solely because counsel concludes that the appeal lacks merit or would require asserting an allegedly frivolous claim.
2. Whether appointed counsel's inability to contact the client warranted withdrawal under the circumstances presented in In re S.C.

Disposition

other