Case Title: In Re Unnamed Attorney

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1987-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-485


In re Unnamed Attorney                       Supreme Court

                                             Original Jurisdiction

                                             October Term, 1987


PRESENT:  Peck, Dooley and Mahady, JJ.


     PER CURIAM.   Respondent, an attorney admitted to practice in this
Court, has moved to quash an investigative subpoena issued by the clerk of
this Court on the application of the chair of the Professional Conduct
Board.  We grant the motion to quash with the proviso that the subpoena may
be reissued consistent with this opinion.
     The subpoena was issued pursuant to { 7(f) of the Permanent Rules
Governing Establishment of Professional Conduct Board and Its Operation,
Administrative Order No. 9, as it existed prior to the 1989 amendment.  It
provided:
         (f) The Chairman of the Board, or of any hearing panel,
         shall have the right to subpoena witnesses at any stage
         of the investigation.  The respondent-attorney shall
         have a like right.  Application for a subpoena, in-
         cluding a subpoena duces tecum, shall be made to the
         clerk of this Court, who shall issue the same.

Respondent's main argument in support of his motion is that issuance of the
subpoena must be preceded by a "clear and concise written statement of the
alleged misconduct to be investigated" as prepared by bar counsel and served
on the respondent pursuant to { 7(b).  Respondent argues that issuance of
the instant subpoena without such a statement denies him due process of
law.
     Although there has been no evidence presented to this Court, the basic
facts are not in dispute.  In response to a complaint, the substance of
which is known to respondent, bar counsel sent a letter to respondent's
counsel outlining the "areas of possible interest" and seeking certain
information with respect to them.  That information was provided.  After bar
counsel interviewed relevant witnesses, he sent a letter to respondent's
counsel seeking the answers to five questions and certain documents.
Respondent refused to answer, demanding a statement of the matters to be
investigated.  Upon request of bar counsel, the chair of the Board
requested that the clerk of this Court issue a subpoena to respondent to
appear and testify, bringing with him certain documents.  When the subpoena
was issued, respondent brought a motion to quash in this Court.
     We do not agree that respondent is entitled to a statement of charges
against him before a subpoena is issued under { 7(f).  The statement of
charges requirement, contained in { 7(b), provides notice of alleged
misconduct prior to a probable cause hearing.  This proceeding has not yet
reached the stage of a probable cause hearing, and, thus, no statement of
charges is required by { 7(b).  The subpoena section expressly applies to
"any stage of the investigation," including the pre-probable cause stage.
The request for a subpoena does not itself trigger the requirement for a
statement of charges.
     At least two other courts have addressed the precise question raised
here, both in the context of an investigative subpoena issued to an attorney
under investigation. (FN1) The case more similar to the one before us is
Anonymous v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n, 430 Mich. 241, 256,