Case Title: In re Illuzzi

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-06-01T00:00:00Z

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-515


 In re Vincent Illuzzi, Esq.                  Supreme Court

                                              Original Jurisdiction

                                              June Term, 1992


 Wendy S. Collins, Bar Counsel, Montpelier, for petitioner-appellee

 David Putter of Saxer, Anderson, Wolinsky and Sunshine, Montpelier, and
   Edwin H. Amidon of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon, Burlington,
   for respondent-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      PER CURIAM.   Respondent-attorney appeals the Professional Conduct
 Board's conclusion that he violated three provisions of the Code of
 Professional Responsibility and the Board's recommended sanction of a six-
 month suspension from the practice of law.  We conclude that the Board
 failed to adhere to the requirements of its procedural rules when it adopted
 a second hearing panel report that had not been submitted to respondent.
 We therefore remand the case to allow respondent to brief and argue before
 the Board on the basis of the second panel report.
      Respondent was charged first with violating DR 7-104(A)(1) (a lawyer
 shall not communicate with an adverse party known to be represented by
 counsel without the consent of the party's attorney) for communicating with
 two insurance companies after they had retained counsel to defend personal
 injury claims.  The second charge against respondent alleged a violation of
 DR 1-102(A)(7) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
 reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law) for making a disparaging
 remark about an insurer's defense counsel.  Finally, respondent was charged
 with a violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
 that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) for a pattern of
 improper contacts that resulted in an insurer relinquishing a legal
 defense.
      A three-member panel heard this matter pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 8(C)
 and issued its report with findings and recommendations to the full Board in
 July 1991.  Based on this report, respondent and Bar Counsel filed Rule 8(D)
 briefs and the Board heard oral arguments in early August 1991.  The panel
 then issued a new report, in November 1991, that contained substantially
 different findings and recommendations than the initial report.  For
 example, the first report contained the following: "Regarding the Renaudette
 claim, it is not clear that Mr. Illuzzi was ever told not to talk to
 Travelers."  In the second report, without the introduction of new evidence,
 the language "it is not clear" became "it is clear."  Although the first
 report found only a violation of DR 7-104(A)(1), the second report concluded
 that respondent had also violated DR 1-102(A)(7) and DR 1-102(A)(5).  The
 Board adopted the second report, which emphasized that respondent
 communicated with the companies after being advised not to do so.
 Respondent contends that the Board violated A.O. 9, Rule 8(C) and thereby
 deprived him of the opportunity to brief and argue the revised finding and
 conclusions to the Board.  We agree.
      Rule 8(C) directs the hearing panel to issue a report containing its
 findings and recommendations and requires that "[a] copy of each report
 shall be submitted to bar counsel and the respondent."  A.O. 9, Rule 8(C).
 Once a report is issued, Rule 8(D) directs the Board to set dates for the
 submission of briefs and for oral arguments.  A.O. 9, Rule 8(D).  The Board
 then may "affirm or modify the recommendations of the hearing panel, remand
 the matter for further proceedings before the hearing panel, or dismiss the
 petition."  Id.  Thus, the facts found by the panel provide the foundation
 for the proceedings before the Board.  Any changes that the panel makes in
 its findings must be disclosed to the parties pursuant to Rule 8(C), which
 triggers the opportunity to present briefs and arguments under Rule 8(D),
 prior to the Board's issuance of its final report.  After final submission
 of the matter, the Board makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of
 law, which respondent may then challenge before this Court.
      In this case, the panel drafted a second report, (FN1) containing findings
 substantially different than those contained in the initial report.  The new
 panel report eliminated the mitigating factors contained in the earlier
 report and recommended sanctioning respondent.  This second report of the
 panel was not issued until after the parties' oral argument to the Board.
 Thus, respondent was denied the opportunity, expressly provided for by Rule
 8, to respond to the panel's changed findings and conclusions.
      Bar Counsel contends that, in this instance, strict adherence to the
 rules would exalt form over substance.  We disagree.  Attorneys appearing
 before the Board on charges of violations of the Code of Professional
 Responsibility should be accorded the full measure of procedural safeguards
 provided by the rules.  See In Re Ruffalo,