Title: In re Shepperson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Shepperson  (95-133); 164 Vt 636; 674 A.2d 1273

[Filed 24-Jan-1996]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-133

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1995


In re Carlyle Shepperson                 }     APPEALED FROM:
					 }
                                         }
                                         }     Professional Conduct Board
                                         }
                                         }


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Respondent Carlyle Shepperson appeals the Professional Conduct Board's
  recommendation that he be disbarred for violating DR 6-101(A)(1) (lawyer
  shall not handle legal matter that lawyer is incompetent to handle) and DR
  6-101(A)(2) (lawyer shall not handle legal matter without adequate
  preparation).  We suspend respondent indefinitely until he can demonstrate
  that he is fit to practice law.

       In June 1991, a justice of this Court not taking part in this decision
  filed a complaint with the Board concerning the quality of respondent's
  legal submissions.  In March 1993, the Board and respondent entered into a
  remedial stipulation in which respondent agreed not to engage in the
  practice of law while he completed a legal writing tutorial.  The
  stipulation provided that respondent would participate in periodic tutoring
  sessions to develop skills in legal analysis, persuasive writing
  techniques, writing organization, and use of legal authority, proper
  citation form, and proper formatting for memoranda and briefs.  At the end
  of the tutorial program, which was to last for a minimum of six months,
  respondent was to prepare a ten-page legal writing sample and a
  self-written evaluation of his progress.  Respondent was given until
  September 1, 1993 to report on his progress with the tutor.  On September
  15, 1993, respondent wrote bar counsel that he would not be completing the
  tutorial, and that he had left the United States for an indefinite period
  of time.

       Bar counsel filed a petition of misconduct in June 1994, charging
  respondent with violating DR 6-101(A)(1) & (2).  Respondent filed memoranda
  with the Board but did not appear for the disciplinary hearing held in
  December 1994.  A majority of the Board adopted the hearing panel's
  recommendation that respondent be disbarred, with two dissenting members
  stating that they would suspend respondent indefinitely until he proved he
  was fit to practice law.

  

       All members of the Board agreed with the hearing panel's findings that
  between 1985 and 1992 respondent repeatedly submitted legal briefs to this
  Court that were generally incomprehensible, made arguments without
  explaining the claimed legal errors, presented no substantiated legal
  structure to the arguments, and devoted large portions of the narrative to
  irrelevant philosophical rhetoric.  The briefs contained numerous citation
  errors that made identification of the cases difficult, cited cases for
  irrelevant or incomprehensible reasons, made legal arguments without
  citation to authority, and inaccurately represented the law contained in
  the cited cases.  All members of the Board also agreed with the hearing
  panel's conclusions that (1) respondent's briefs were not competently
  prepared and fell below the minimum standard for brief-writing expected of
  a practicing attorney in this state; (2) respondent failed to prepare
  adequately or give appropriate attention to his legal work; and (3)
  respondent did not use proper care to safeguard the interests of his
  clients.

       A review of the exhibits in this case supports the Board's findings
  that respondent disserved his clients by preparing inadequate and
  incomprehensible legal briefs, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(1) & (2). 
  Respondent's brief in this matter is a further example of the deficiencies
  noted by the Board.  In over ninety pages, respondent fails to raise a
  legitimate legal issue or cite a single authority in support of his
  arguments.  The gist of his harangue against the legal system is that the
  Board and this Court have violated his freedoms of speech and religion and
  limited his ability to think in diverse ways by dictating what is and what
  is not a proper legal argument. If we were to accept this argument, it
  would preclude any oversight of attorney competence in representing members
  of the public.  Respondent may represent himself as he pleases, but he
  cannot be permitted to represent others in a manner that, under reasonable
  and accepted standards, fails to safeguard his clients' interests.  Indeed,
  the primary purpose of the attorney disciplinary system is to protect the
  public.  In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 532, 602 A.2d 946, 950 (1991); ABA
  Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 1.1, Commentary (1991).

       The only real issue on appeal is whether respondent should be
  disbarred or suspended indefinitely.(FN1)  According to the American Bar
  Association Standards, which we have found helpful in determining
  appropriate sanctions, see Berk, 157 Vt. at 532, 602 A.2d  at 950,
  "Disbarment should be imposed on lawyers who are found to have engaged in
  multiple instances of incompetent behavior . . . [or] whose course of
  conduct demonstrates that they cannot or will not master the knowledge and
  skills necessary for minimally competent practice."  Standard 4.51,
  Commentary.  Here, respondent's course of conduct in filing several
  incomprehensible briefs over a period of seven years and his failure to
  follow through with the stipulated tutorial program designed to improve his
  skills demonstrate his inability or refusal to understand and apply
  fundamental legal doctrines and procedures.  Id. Standard 4.51. 
  Nevertheless, because there is no indication that respondent's conduct was
  intentional or based on corrupt motives, we adopt the minority position of
  the Board and suspend respondent until he can prove that he is fit to
  practice law.  See ABA Standard 9.32(b) (absence of dishonest or selfish
  motive is mitigating factor); cf. In re Hogan,