Case Title: In re PRB Docket No. 2006-167

Citation: 2007 VT 50

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re PRB Docket No. 2006-167 (2006-287)

2007 VT 50

[Filed 02-May-2007]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 50

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-287

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2006


  In re PRB Docket No. 2006-167   }   APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }   Professional Responsibility Board
                                  }
                                  }   
                                  }   DOCKET NO. 2006-167


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶   1.   Disciplinary Counsel appeals from a decision of the
  Professional Responsibility Board.  Disciplinary Counsel and respondent
  entered into a stipulation which recommended the Hearing Panel find that
  respondent had violated Rule 1.3 of the Vermont Rules of Professional
  Conduct.  The parties further recommended that the Panel impose a private
  admonition as the appropriate sanction.  The Hearing Panel found no
  violation of Rule 1.3, and dismissed the complaint.  We affirm.

       ¶   2.   Respondent, admitted to the bar in 1985, represented a client
  in a criminal matter in district court.  A jury convicted the client, and
  on November 29, 2000, the court imposed a sentence of incarceration.  The
  client asked respondent to file a notice of appeal on his behalf, and
  respondent agreed to do so.  Respondent filed his client's notice of appeal
  five days after the deadline, and this Court dismissed the appeal as
  untimely. 

       ¶   3.   Fewer than sixty days after the appeal was dismissed, the
  Prisoners' Rights Division of the Defender General's Office filed a
  petition for post-conviction relief in superior court on behalf of the
  client alleging that the respondent's untimely filing of the appeal
  constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.  Respondent cooperated in
  that proceeding as a potential witness.  The parties settled the
  post-conviction relief case by providing the client an additional thirty
  days in which to file a new notice of appeal.  The client filed his second
  notice of appeal within that time, and this Court eventually denied the
  client's appeal on the merits. 

       ¶   4.   The client then filed a professional conduct complaint
  against respondent, alleging that he failed to act diligently and promptly
  in filing the original notice of appeal.  The Vermont Rules of Professional
  Conduct require an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
  in representing a client.  V.R.P.C. 1.3.  Respondent cooperated with the
  disciplinary process, and admitted the alleged misconduct.  As noted above,
  Disciplinary Counsel and respondent entered into a stipulation in which
  respondent admitted misconduct and the parties recommended an agreed-upon
  sanction to the Hearing Panel of the Professional Responsibility Board. 
  The Panel held that missing the deadline to file a notice of appeal did not
  constitute a violation of Rule 1.3 in this case.  Therefore, the Board
  dismissed the complaint.  One member of the Board dissented.  Disciplinary
  Counsel appealed.

        
       ¶   5.   "This Court makes its own decisions as to attorney
  discipline, according deference to the Board's findings."  In re Keitel,
  172 Vt. 537, 538,