Case Title: In re Wysolmerski

Citation: 167 Vt. 562, 702 A.2d 73

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Wysolmerski  (96-597); 167 Vt. 562; 702 A.2d 73

[Filed 25-Jul-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-597

                         JUNE TERM, 1997

In re Sigismund Wysolmerski, Esq.     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }     Professional Conduct Board
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }     DOCKET NOS. 92.23, 94.55, 94.56,
                                                        94.57 and 94.58

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

       Respondent Sigismund Wysolmerski challenges the Professional Conduct
  Board's recommendation that he be suspended from legal practice for three
  years.  He argues that this recommendation is unduly harsh and does not
  take several mitigating factors into account.  We agree with the Board's
  recommendation and accordingly, impose the three-year suspension.

       Respondent does not dispute the conduct that led to these disciplinary
  proceedings.  The Board found that between 1985 and 1993 respondent
  violated numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
  while serving five clients.  Among these violations, respondent acted
  without clients' approval and bound them to unauthorized settlements.  See
  DR 7-101(A)(1), 1-102(A)(5) (lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek
  clients' lawful objectives through reasonably available means; lawyer shall
  not engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).  He
  misrepresented to other attorneys his authority to bind clients, and lied
  to clients about the status of their cases.  See DR 1-102(A)(4) (lawyer
  shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
  misrepresentation).  He knowingly made false statements to other attorneys
  and to courts.  See DR 7-102(A)(5) (lawyer shall not knowingly make false
  statements of fact while representing client).  He failed to keep in
  contact with clients and inform them of their legal obligations, failed to
  file a promised lawsuit, and failed to forward settlement offers and court
  papers.  See DR 6-101(A)(3) (lawyer shall not neglect entrusted legal
  matters).  Respondent otherwise did not fulfill his professional contracts
  with clients, as required by DR 7-101(A)(2), and engaged in conduct
  adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR
  1-102(A)(7).

       Respondent concedes that suspension is appropriate, but maintains that
  the three-year suspension recommended by the Board is too severe given the
  mitigating circumstances of his case.  He argues that the Board, in making
  its recommendation, did not give sufficient weight to mitigating factors,
  particularly the serious personal problems that beset respondent.  One
  partner in respondent's law firm died of cancer in 1988.  Another took time
  off and left respondent with much of the office's work.  Meanwhile
  respondent's marriage ended in a painful divorce, and a close relative was
  accused of serious improprieties.  Because he was helping his relative cope
  with these accusations, respondent could no longer approach him to discuss
  his own problems and so lost his only confidant.

       We do not agree with respondent that the recommended three-year
  suspension is too severe.  The Board recognized and considered the personal
  problems that beset respondent; it also noted such aggravating factors as
  the vulnerability of respondent's victims and the extent of his misconduct
  over six years in five unrelated instances.  His neglect and active
  misconduct not only harmed several clients, but denied them their day in
  court.  He was repeatedly dishonest with clients, other attorneys, and
  courts.  Such behavior generally merits disbarment. ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual
  on Professional Conduct, ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
  Standards 4.41(b), 5.11(b), 6.11; see In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 532, 602 A.2d 946,

 

  950 (1991) (ABA standards helpful in gauging sanctions); see also In re
  Sullivan,