Case Title: In re Lancaster

Citation: 166 Vt. 602, 690 A.2d 863

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Lancaster  (95-547); 166 Vt. 602; 690 A.2d 863

[Filed 23-Jan-1997]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-547

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996

In re Patricia Lancaster, Esq.       }     Original Jurisdiction
                                     }
                                     }     FROM:
                                     }     Professional Conduct Board
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 94-60

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

       The Professional Conduct Board recommends that respondent, who
  knowingly made false statements to a court in a pretrial motion, receive a
  public reprimand for her conduct. Respondent argues that, based on the
  circumstances of this case, a private admonition would adequately serve the
  goals of the disciplinary process.  We adopt the Board's recommendation
  that respondent receive a public reprimand.

       Respondent has stipulated to the underlying facts.  At the time this
  incident occurred, respondent had practiced law for fifteen years.  She was
  admitted to the Vermont bar in 1987, and since that year has served as a
  public defender.  On May 20, 1993 she was appointed to represent John
  Gillam on a charge of driving under the influence, third offense. When she
  first interviewed the defendant on that date, he stated that he had
  provided a breath sample to the police and that at his request he had been
  taken to a hospital to obtain an independent blood test. Respondent
  received the results of that test several weeks later.  In November 1993
  respondent deposed the processing officer.  The officer testified that the
  defendant had not requested a blood test and therefore had not been taken
  to the hospital.  The processing paperwork did not mention the trip to the
  hospital and the prosecutor was unaware that defendant had received the
  blood test.

       Based on the officer's testimony, respondent moved to suppress the
  results of the defendant's breath test, alleging that the defendant's
  request for an independent blood test was denied.  See 23 V.S.A. §
  1202(d)(4); State v. Karmen, 150 Vt. 547, 548-49,