Case Title: In re Burgess

Citation: 169 Vt. 533, 725 A.2d 302

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Burgess  (88-055); 169 Vt. 533; 725 A.2d 302

[14-Jan-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 88-55

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1998

In re  John A. Burgess	}	Original Jurisdiction
                        }
                        }
                        }	Professional Conduct Board
                        }	
                        }
                        }	DOCKET NO.	

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

       This bar discipline matter came before the Court for hearing on
  December 16, 1998  pursuant to Rule 8(E) of Administrative Order 9. 
  Present were Bar Counsel William M. Dorsch  and the respondent, who
  appeared pro se.  Bar Counsel asks the Court to disbar respondent as 
  recommended by the committee appointed by the Court to investigate the
  formal presentment  complaint filed by the Office of the Attorney General. 
  Respondent, whose license to practice law  in this jurisdiction has been
  under suspension since 1988, contends that reinstatement as an  attorney on
  a probationary basis is the appropriate disposition given the long history
  of this  matter.

       A brief summary of the committee's findings is as follows: 
  Respondent's suspension stems  from his 1988 federal convictions in
  California on charges of contempt, interstate transportation  of stolen
  property and fraud.  Following approximately three years of incarceration,
  respondent  violated his probation in 1992 and was again incarcerated. 
  Although his probation prohibited him  from practicing law, respondent
  accepted a job with a California law firm and ultimately  defrauded the
  firm by misappropriating funds and using a firm credit card for personal
  expenses.  As a result of the probation violation, respondent was again
  incarcerated from September 1992  to September 1994.  On January 13, 1997,
  despite being under suspension as a Vermont attorney,  respondent applied
  for an attorney position with a legal services agency in this state.

       In urging us to reinstate rather than to disbar him, respondent
  contends that disbarment  would be inappropriately harsh because he is 62
  years old and has already been under suspension  for a decade.  However,
  the applicable rule provides that an attorney who has been suspended

     shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence 
     that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning 
     required for admission to practice law in this state, and the resumption 
     of the practice of law will be neither detrimental to the integrity and 
     standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the 
     public interest and that the respondent attorney has been rehabilitated.

  A.O. 9, § 20(D).  Respondent has not met this burden.  The committee found
  that he offered no  evidence to aid it "in better understanding the causes"
  of the conduct at issue nor any evidence  "that such circumstances, whether
  internal or external, have been addressed in a way 

 

  that would make less likely the potential for a recurrence of this
  behavior."  Respondent does not  challenge this finding here.

       We recognize that disbarment will add at least five years to the
  period in which respondent  is prohibited from practicing law.  Given the
  gravity of conduct in issue, and the absence of  anything in the record to
  suggest it will not recur, we believe disbarment is the appropriate 
  sanction.  Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the committee.

       Therefore, it is hereby ordered that respondent John A. Burgess is
  disbarred from the office  of attorney and counsellor at law.	

FOR THE COURT:

__________________________________________
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

Concurring:

__________________________________________
Mary Miles Teachout, Superior Court Judge
Specially Assigned

__________________________________________
M. Kathleen Manley, Superior Court Judge
Specially Assigned 

__________________________________________
Albert W. Barney, Chief Justice (Ret.)
Specially Assigned

__________________________________________
Ernest W. Gibson, Associate Justice (Ret.)
Specially Assigned