Case Title: In re William Tracy Carris, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

Citation: 2021 VT 55

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2021-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY. ORDER vue
SUPREME CouRT
2021 VI32 FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
MAY 0.3 2021
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2021-080
APRIL TERM, 2021

In re William Tracy Carris, Esq
(Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

} Original Jurisdiction
}
} Professional Responsibility Board
)
)

PRB NO. 2021-098, 116

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

11. Respondent, William Tracy Carts, isa lawyer licensed to practice law in the State
of Vermont. On April 20, 2021, Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition seeking the immediate
interim suspension of respondent's license for reasons summarized below. Respondent appeared
at a hearing held on the petition and responded to the petition orally. Having reviewed the
evidence, we conclude thatthe requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 22, are satisfied and
‘we immediately suspend respondent's license to practice law pending final disposition of a
disciplinary or disability proceeding. Respondent shall comply with the notice requirements set
forth in Administrative Order 9, Rule 27

 

 

 

2. _Aninterim suspension order is appropriate where an attorney has “either committed
«violation ofthe rules of professional responsibility... oris under a disability” and the attomey
“presently poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” A.0. 9, Rule 22(A){B). As
suggested, the purpose of an interim suspension is to quickly protect the public from harm. It is
not the equivalent ofa suspension imposed as a sanction following a determination of misconduct
under A.O. 9, Rule 15(A)Q). It is an interim order putin place until a final disposition is made
pursuant to either disciplinary or disability proceedings.

 

 

 

  

413. _ Inher petition, Disciplinary Counsel stated that between February 2021 and April
2021, the Professional Responsibility Board received numerous reports about respondent from
Clients other attomeys, and respondents former staff members. They reported that respondent
was not returning calls or responding to their repeated attempts to contact him. Disciplinary
Counsel described in detail respondent's failure to respond to inuiries concerning five separate
matters and gave testimony regarding the allegations. In one of the cases, respondent was
responsible for paying the care expenses, including pharmacy bills, fora cient pursuant toa power
of attorney (refered to as “client #1”). He failed to do so promply and failed to respond to
inquiries about the unpaid bills. The other matters in which respondent failed to respond involve
the retum of escrowed client funds and original clint property, and the filing of ife-etate deed
fora terminally il elient.

 

414. While respondent believed he may have had some contacts with thse clients on
various dates, he acknowledged, through his testimony, delays in responding to cients and lengthy
<elays in providing funds on behalf of client #1. Respondent agreed that this conduct affected
these individuals’ interests. Respondent indicated that he isin the process of familiarizing himself
with his trast accounting software but di not refute that, atthe time of the petition, he was unable
to produce a report listing which clients he was holding funds for and the balances of those funds,
Respondent expressed feeling overwhelmed and dissatisfied with the practice of law and
‘welcomed the assistance of a truste in attending tothe needs of his clients.

415. We find respondents lack of responsiveness to his clients inconsistent with Rule
1.3 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires an attomey to “act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” The evidence shows that
respondent failed to timely respond to and attend toa numberof important and time-sensitive client
needs and inquiries. His lack of responsiveness poses a substantial threat of serious harm to his,
clients. His failure to timely respond, communicate, and pay client #1°s expenses created a risk
‘that this client's care and services would be interrupted and interfered with the timely submission
of paperwork to determine client #1's Medicaid eligibility. Respondent's failure to complete the
filing of the real estate deed may frustrate another clients end-of-life wishes. His failure to
respond to the remaining clients may jeopardize their ability to finalize settlement agreements or
move forward with settling the estates of their loved ones. An interim suspension is warranted to
protect the interests ofthe public.

 

 

 

{6 Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rules 22 and 28, we appoint F. Rendol Barlow as trustee to
“inventory the files ofthe respondent, and... take action as seems indicated to protect the interests
of the respondent and respondent's clients.” As reflected above, one of the issues that led t0 the
filing of the petition is respondent's conduct while acting as an attomney-in-fact for client #1
pursuant to a power of attorney. We do not at this time appoint the trustee as the new attorney-in=
fact for client #1 but instead direct the trustee to work collaboratively with respondent and client
‘#1—to the extent that client #1 is competent to do so—in an effort to effectuate a voluntary transfer
of respondent's responsibilities over client #1°s funds to another individual, which may include
the truste, during this interim suspension, In the event this transfer does not occur within thiety
days, we direct the trustee to report back to this Court concerning the status of client #1"s various

 

 

 

BY THE COURT

= Robinson, Associate Justice
flarold E. Eaton, Jr di Tustice

TE Cifoll, Associate Justice

 

iam D. Coheh, Associate Tu