In re Glenn Robinson, Esq.

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a Professional Responsibility Board decision concerning attorney misconduct involving two former clients. The Court upheld violations of Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, 4.3, and 8.4(g), reversed the violation of Rule 8.4(d), and imposed disbarment rather than the panel’s recommended two-year suspension. The opinion also clarified that the Court gives consideration and great weight to, but does not defer to, disciplinary panel recommendations on sanctions.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court reviews disciplinary hearing panel findings of fact for clear error and reviews legal conclusions, including violation determinations and sanction recommendations, de novo. The Court may consider the panel's sanction recommendation but does not defer to it because the Supreme Court retains plenary authority over attorney discipline.
2. An attorney violates Rule 1.7 by representing a client while engaging in a sexual relationship with the client and failing to obtain the client's informed consent to the conflict, confirmed in writing.
3. A lawyer dealing with an unrepresented person must not imply disinterestedness, must correct a known or reasonably apparent misunderstanding about the lawyer's role, and must advise the person to obtain counsel when the person's interests conflict or may conflict with the lawyer's interests. Robinson knowingly violated Rule 4.3 by presenting P.B. with a self-protective waiver without clarifying his role or advising her to obtain independent counsel.
4. The hearing panel could not impose discipline for an uncharged Rule 8.4(d) violation considered after the evidentiary hearing without providing the respondent notice of the alleged rule violation and an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing.
5. An attorney violates Rule 8.4(g) by knowingly engaging in unwelcome sexual conduct that creates a hostile work environment and by implicitly conditioning an employee's continued employment on agreeing not to pursue discrimination or sexual-harassment claims under the circumstances presented.
6. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction because Robinson knowingly committed multiple violations, targeted vulnerable individuals, acted with a selfish motive and intent to benefit himself, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and caused serious or potentially serious injury to the victims and the legal profession.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing panel's factual findings concerning Robinson's conduct with C.M. and P.B. were clearly erroneous.
2. Whether Robinson violated Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 by representing C.M. while engaging in a sexual relationship with her without obtaining written informed consent.
3. Whether Robinson violated Rule 4.3 by dealing with P.B. as an unrepresented person without clarifying that he was acting in his own interest and without advising her to obtain independent counsel.
4. Whether Robinson violated Rule 8.4(d) when the hearing panel sua sponte considered and found an uncharged violation after the evidentiary hearing.
5. Whether Robinson violated Rule 8.4(g) by creating a hostile work environment and implicitly conditioning P.B.'s employment on waiving discrimination and sexual-harassment claims.
6. What sanction was appropriate for the violations, and whether the Court owed deference to the hearing panel's sanction recommendation.

Disposition

other