Case Title: In re Hunter

Citation: 171 Vt. 635, 769 A.2d 1286

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Hunter (99-534); 171 Vt. 635; 769 A.2d 1286 

[Filed 28-Dec-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-534

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2000

In re William Hunter, Esq.	        }	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
   	                                }	Professional Conduct Board
                                        }	
                                        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 99.26

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

       Respondent William A. Hunter appeals from the recommendation of the
  Professional Conduct  Board that he be disbarred as a result of engaging in
  illegal conduct involving a serious crime in  violation of DR 1-102(A)(3)
  of the Code of Professional Conduct.  He contends that the Board erred  (1)
  by failing to consider  his mental disability as a mitigating factor, (2)
  by failing to address the  evidence respondent presented on seven other
  mitigating factors, and (3) by failing to explain why  disbarment is the
  appropriate sanction to protect the public.  We adopt the Board's
  recommendation  and disbar respondent effective October 5, 1998.

       The parties stipulated to the facts before the Board.  On June 17,
  1998, respondent pled guilty  to one felony count of mail fraud in the
  United States District Court for the District of Vermont. On  October 5,
  1998, the court entered a felony conviction against respondent.  The
  conduct at issue  involved mishandling of client funds and
  misrepresentations about those funds during the period  from 1993-1996. 
  Respondent repeatedly deposited client funds in his personal account or his
  general  office account when these funds should have been held in
  respondent's client trust account on behalf  of clients.  In many
  instances, respondent used client funds in his office or personal account
  for  personal expenses, and he also used funds in the client trust account
  for his personal benefit.   The  parties' stipulation of facts details
  eleven separate matters in which respondent mishandled client  funds,
  illustrating that respondent repeatedly used client funds without the
  permission of the client  and lied to clients, attorneys and a probate
  judge to cover up his misconduct.

       Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 14(D) (Cum. Supp. 1998) (formal proceedings
  after conviction for  serious crime), special bar counsel filed a petition
  of misconduct against respondent.  There was no  dispute that respondent
  was convicted of a serious crime.  The only issue before the Board was the 
  sanction to be imposed for the undisputed conduct.  The Board's decision
  was based on the parties'  stipulation of facts and the testimony of
  respondent and two expert medical experts, one proffered by  each side,
  concerning whether respondent had a mental disability that mitigated the
  misconduct.   Applying the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
  the Board concluded that disbarment 

 

  was appropriate under three separate standards.  See ABA, Standards for
  Imposing Lawyer  Sanctions, Standard 4.61 (disbarment appropriate when
  lawyer knowingly deceives client with intent  to benefit lawyer or another,
  and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to client); 
  Standard 5.1 (disbarment appropriate when lawyer engages in serious
  criminal conduct or intentional  conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
  deceit or misrepresentation that adversely reflects on lawyer's  fitness to
  practice law); Standard 6.1 (disbarment appropriate when lawyer makes false
  statement  with intent to deceive court). 

       Further, the Board found several aggravating factors: (1) respondent
  has a significant record of  prior discipline, (2) respondent acted with a
  dishonest or selfish motive, (3) respondent exhibited a  pattern of
  misconduct, (4) respondent is responsible for multiple offenses, and (5)
  the victims of  respondent's misconduct were vulnerable.  See ABA
  Standards, supra, Standard 9.2 (listing factors  that may be considered
  aggravating and justifying increase in degree of discipline to be imposed). 
  It  considered but rejected several mitigating factors advanced by
  respondent.  First, the Board rejected  respondent's claim that he was
  motivated by a genuine desire to help people obtain financing because  it
  had previously found that respondent had a dishonest or selfish motive for
  much of the  misconduct.  Second, the Board rejected respondent's claim
  that his mental disorder, attention deficit  disorder (ADD), be considered
  a mitigating factor.  It concluded that ADD would explain a  disorganized
  practice and neglect of client matters, but did not explain repeated use of
  client's money  without permission, lying to clients, attorneys and judges,
  and covering up the misconduct to protect  himself.  Third, the Board
  rejected respondent's claim that he has been rehabilitated by obtaining 
  professional help and taking medication for ADD because addressing his ADD
  is not rehabilitative  of the misconduct that is not attributable to the
  mental disability.  The Board found no credible  evidence that respondent
  had learned from his mistakes and now has the ability to handle client
  funds  in a responsible manner.   In view of the aggravating factors and
  the absence of mitigating factors,  the Board unanimously concluded that
  disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

       Although we make the ultimate decision on discipline, we accord
  deference to the Board's  recommendations.  See In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524,
  527-28, 602 A.2d 946, 948 (1991). Before this  Court, respondent raises
  three issues.  He contends first that the Board erred in failing to
  consider his  mental disability as a mitigating factor.  He concedes: "No
  one has suggested that ADD was a direct  cause of the infractions."  He
  contends, however, that the Board's past decisions have recognized a 
  mental impairment as a mitigating factor without requiring a showing that
  the mental impairment  caused the misconduct.  We have held otherwise.  

       In In re Hunter, 167 Vt. 219, 224-25,