Case Title: In re Andres

Citation: 177 Vt. 511, 2004 VT 71, 857 A.2d 803

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Andres  (2002-428); 177 Vt. 511; 857 A.2d 803

2004 VT 71

[Filed 6-Aug-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 71

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-428

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2003

       In re Robert Andres, Esq.       }     APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }     Professional Responsibility Board
                                       }     
                                       }
                                       }     DOCKET NO. 2002-110

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1     Respondent, Robert Andres, Esq., appeals a Professional
  Responsibility Board decision that he violated Rule 1.3 of the Vermont
  Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to attend a pretrial hearing and
  to respond to a motion for summary judgment.  We adopt the Professional
  Responsibility Board's ruling and suspend respondent for a period of two
  months.

       ¶  2     Respondent was assigned to represent Andres Torres in a
  post-conviction relief (PCR) petition arising out of Torres's 1997 guilty
  plea to a second offense of domestic assault.  Torres was represented by
  counsel other than respondent when he entered his guilty plea.  The
  information charging Torres with second offense domestic assault relied on
  an alleged 1995 domestic assault conviction.  That charge had, in fact,
  been dismissed; there was no conviction.  Torres therefore pled guilty to a
  second offense of domestic assault even though he lacked a conviction for a
  first offense.

       ¶  3     On July 20, 2000, Torres filed a PCR petition pro se arguing
  that his conviction for second offense domestic assault was unlawful
  because he lacked the necessary prior domestic assault conviction. 
  Respondent was assigned to represent Torres in the PCR matter and, on
  October 17, 2000, filed an amended PCR petition on Torres's behalf.  He
  then engaged in a reasonable investigation of Torres's case, including
  speaking with Torres's prior counsel and listening to the taped Change of
  Plea Hearing.  
        
       ¶  4     In June 2001, respondent received a Notice of Hearing
  scheduling a pretrial conference in Torres's PCR matter.  Respondent failed
  to attend the pretrial conference.  In July 2001, the State filed a motion
  for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Torres's PCR petition.  Respondent
  failed to file a response to the State's motion, nor did he move the court
  for permission to withdraw from representing Torres.  In September 2001,
  the court granted the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing
  Torres's PCR petition with prejudice.  Respondent notified Torres of the
  dismissal in an undated letter.  Torres obtained new court-appointed
  counsel and appealed the summary judgment ruling to this Court.

       ¶  5     After pleading guilty in 1997, Torres was sentenced by Judge
  Jenkins.  At some point during his engagement with Torres, respondent
  became aware that Judge Jenkins was also presiding over his PCR petition. 
  In an undated letter, Torres informed respondent of this fact saying, "P.S.
  I've just now realized that Judge Jenkins was the judge who sentenced me on
  the charges that I am now serving time for, and the charge in question. 
  Can he preside over my P.C.R. without bias?  I doubt it."  Because
  respondent had not attended the pretrial conference, he was never
  confronted with Judge Jenkins's presence in the case.  Respondent testified
  that he knew 13 V.S.A. § 7131 prohibited the sentencing judge from hearing
  a subsequent PCR petition in the same matter. At no time, however, did he
  seek to have Torres's PCR petition reassigned.  

       ¶  6     When Torres appealed with new counsel to this Court, the
  parties stipulated to vacating the summary judgment ruling and remanding
  the case for consideration on the merits by a different judge.  Torres's
  new attorney then filed an opposition to the State's summary judgment
  motion. 

       ¶  7     In October 2002, Torres filed a complaint against respondent
  with the Professional Responsibility Program alleging misconduct in the
  handling of his PCR petition.  Respondent was charged with violating Rules
  1.2(a) (failure to abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives
  of representation), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and
  promptness), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
  administration of justice).  The alleged misconduct consisted primarily of
  respondent's failure to attend a pretrial conference and to file a response
  to the State's summary judgment motion.  

       ¶  8     The matter was heard by a Hearing Panel of the Professional
  Responsibility Board.  After reviewing the evidence, the Board found that
  respondent violated Rule 1.3 when he neglected to attend the pretrial
  conference and intentionally abandoned his client's case by failing to file
  an opposition to the State's summary judgment motion.  Charges based on
  Rules 1.2(a) and 8.4(d) were dismissed.  The Board recommended that he be
  suspended from the practice of law for a period of two months.  Respondent
  appeals.

       ¶  9     "On review, this Court must accept the Panel's findings of
  fact unless they are clearly erroneous."  In re Blais, 174 Vt. 628, 629,