Case Title: In re Anderson

Citation: 171 Vt. 632, 769 A.2d 1282

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Anderson (99-550); 171 Vt. 632; 769 A.2d 1282 

[Filed 26-Dec-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-550

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2000

In re J. Eric Anderson	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
    	                               }	Professional Conduct Board
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 99.82

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

       Respondent J. Eric Anderson appeals from the conclusion of the
  Professional Conduct Board  that he violated the Vermont Code of
  Professional Responsibility: (FN1) DR 9-102(B)(3) (maintain  and render
  complete records and accounts of all client funds and property), 9-102(C)
  (maintain trust  accounting system), and 1-103(A) (disclose unprivileged
  knowledge of disciplinary rules violation).   He also appeals the Board's
  recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded.  Respondent claims  that
  the Board erred in (1) concluding that he took too long to report the
  mishandling of client trust  accounts by a partner; (2) concluding that he
  did not investigate these allegations thoroughly enough;  and (3) holding
  him to a higher standard because he was a past member of the Board.  We
  affirm and  impose the recommended sanction.

       The facts were stipulated to by the parties.  Respondent is licensed
  to practice law in Vermont,  and he was a member of the Board from 1983 to
  1993, acting as Chair from 1989 to 1993.  He  shared operating and trust
  accounts with attorney Gerald P. Cantini and another lawyer from 1991 
  until February 1994.  The shared trust account had a joint ledger and was
  the only trust account used  by these lawyers.  The office used printed
  letterhead that read "Law Office of Cantini, Anderson &  Oakman" and later
  just "Law Offices of Cantini & Anderson."  These attorneys were listed as a 
  partnership in Martindale-Hubbel's directory and obtained liability
  insurance as a partnership  between 1991 and 1993.  In March 1994, the
  notice "Not a Partnership" was added to the letterhead. 

       Just prior to Thanksgiving 1993, the office's secretary and the
  bookkeeper informed  respondent that there were irregularities in Cantini's
  handling of the operating and trust accounts.   The staff recalls informing
  respondent that Cantini had removed moneys from the trust account for 
  expenses that never occurred, and that Cantini was not depositing fee
  checks in the operating 

 

  account.  Respondent recalled being told about the fee checks, but he did
  not recall being told about  the trust fund irregularities at this time. 
  Respondent did check his own client trust account records   for accuracy
  but did not check Cantini's records, even though they used the same
  account.   Respondent spoke with Cantini who assured him there was no need
  for concern. 

       Later, in July 1994, a new associate informed respondent that Cantini
  had improperly taken  money from the trust account for travel expenses that
  were never incurred, and that there were other  irregularities in Cantini's
  handling of funds.  On July 21, 1994, respondent admitted to another 
  attorney that the account did not balance and that he was trying to
  determine what should be done.   Respondent filed an ethics complaint
  against Cantini on August 30, 1994, stating that he believed  Cantini was
  taking money from the client trust account without proper accounting. 

       Based on the foregoing facts, a three-member hearing panel concluded
  that respondent had  violated DR 2-102(D) (lawyers may state or imply a
  partnership only when there is one in fact)  because he had implied a
  partnership and yet claimed, in his defense, that there was none.  The
  panel  also concluded that respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(3), 9-102(C),
  and 1-103(A) due to the  irregularities in the trust account and his
  failure to report Cantini earlier.  Moreover, the panel found  a violation
  of DR 9-101 (lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety) because
  there had  been an appearance of impropriety in his handling of the Cantini
  matter while chair of the Board.   The panel recommend a public reprimand. 
  Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 8(D), (FN2) the Board then  reviewed and modified
  the panel's recommendations, finding no violation of DR 9-101 or DR 2-
  102(D), but otherwise agreeing with the panel's conclusions and
  recommending the sanction of a  public reprimand.  This appeal followed
  pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 8(E) and V.R.A.P. 3.  

       It is only this Court that may impose a public reprimand, A.O. 9, Rule
  7(A)(4).  The Board's  findings, whether purely factual or mixed law and
  fact, are upheld if they are "clearly and reasonably  supported by the
  evidence."  In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 527, 602 A.2d 946, 947 (1991); accord
  In re  Karpin, 162 Vt. 163, 165,