Case Title: In re Gadbois

Citation: 173 Vt. 59, 786 A.2d 393

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Gadbois (2000-026); 173 Vt. 59; 786 A.2d 393

[Filed 21-Sep-2001]

       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. 2000-026

In re Richard Gadbois	                         Supreme Court

                                                 Original Jurisdiction
                                                 from Professional Conduct Board

January Term, 2001

L. Brooke Dingledine of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, P.C., Barre, for 
  Appellant.

Jessica G. Porter and Michael E. Kennedy, Disciplinary Counsel, Burlington, for 
  Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Respondent, Richard Gadbois, Esq., appeals the
  Professional Conduct  Board's decision that he violated the Code of
  Professional Responsibility: (FN1) DR 4-101(B)(3)  (using a confidence or
  secret of a client for the advantage of another); DR 5-105(A) (accepting 
  employment even though it would likely involve him in representing
  differing interests); and DR 1-102(A)(7) (engaging in conduct adversely
  reflecting upon fitness to practice law).  Respondent  argues on appeal
  that the Board erred in finding he violated any disciplinary rule and
  committed a  number of procedural errors.  We reach the merits and reverse.

 

       Respondent represented Richard Rainville in his divorce from his first
  wife in 1980 and  1981.  Rainville's first wife accused him of verbally and
  mentally abusing her during the marriage.   During this representation,
  Rainville discussed various aspects of his life with Respondent.  In the 
  divorce proceedings the Franklin Superior Court found Rainville to be more
  at fault for the marriage  ending because of his temper and assaultive
  behavior.  Shortly after the completion of the divorce,  respondent
  represented Rainville in connection with a property tax abatement.  In the
  years since the  representation was completed, respondent has had only
  limited contact with Rainville: in connection  with a will respondent
  drafted for Rainville's father, and in connection with Rainville's purchase
  of  property from an estate for which respondent was the administrator.

       In 1994, Rainville's second wife filed for divorce citing verbal and
  mental abuse, using  respondent to represent her.  Rainville was shocked
  that respondent appeared as his wife's lawyer  because he believed
  respondent "knew him 'from all ends.'" In response, Rainville asked his
  lawyer  to request that respondent withdraw, which the lawyer did by
  letter.  When respondent refused to  withdraw, Rainville's lawyer moved to
  disqualify him alleging that respondent gained confidential  information
  from the former representation of Rainville "which information is now
  likely to be  detrimental to defendant in the instant case."  The court
  denied the motion, indicating that ethical  complaints should go to the
  Professional Conduct Board (the Board).

       Rainville then changed counsel, and on June 2, 1995, his new lawyer
  filed a complaint with  the Board.  The lawyer also renewed the motion to
  disqualify respondent, relying on an affidavit  from Rainville which stated
  that he gave respondent confidential information about "many aspects of  my
  background, my marriage and my personal life" and "about me and my former
  wife's family life,  life styles, habits, personalities and characters." 
  Rainville indicated that he feared that 

 

  respondent would use against him some of the information.  Concluding that
  Rainville had  demonstrated an "appearance of conflict, and thus the
  appearance of impropriety," after first denying  the motion to disqualify
  respondent again, pending submission of supporting authority, the court 
  granted the motion, and respondent withdrew.

       A hearing panel for the Board then went forward on the complaint. 
  Recognizing that "the  Code of Professional Responsibility does not have a
  specific provision outlining the circumstances  under which an attorney may
  accept representation which is adverse to a former client," the panel 
  analyzed the facts under the American Bar Association, Model Rules of
  Professional Conduct Rule  1.9, which were not then in effect in Vermont,
  and under this Court's decision in State v. Crepeault,  167 Vt. 209,