Title: In re Warren

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Warren  (96-376); 167 Vt. 259; 704 A.2d 789

[Filed 21-Nov-1997]

       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. 96-376

In re Mark E. Warren, Esq.                   Supreme Court

                                             Original Jurisdiction from
                                             Professional Conduct Board

                                             October Term, 1997

Shelley A. Hill, Bar Counsel, White River Junction, appellant

Mark E. Warren, pro se, Boston, Massachusetts, appellee

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

       PER CURIAM.  This is an appeal by bar counsel of a decision of the
  Professional Conduct Board recommending an admonition as discipline for
  respondent's misconduct in violation of DR 2-101(2).  We decline the
  Board's recommendation and impose a public reprimand.

       Respondent attorney's wife filed for divorce in 1994 and began living
  with another man, D.T.  At that time D.T. was separated from his wife, P.T. 
  Between September 20, 1994 and October 4, 1994, respondent sent to P.T.
  three letters, which are the subject of this proceeding.

       In the first letter respondent tells P.T. that his wife is living with
  her husband, D.T., and that he wants to stop their relationship by "making
  his life a living hell."  Although respondent does not identify himself as
  an attorney, he states that he can help her get a divorce from her husband
  "at no cost to you but at great expense to him."  Respondent repeatedly
  asks P.T. to contact him.  The letter concludes by stating that respondent
  "will get tremendous satisfaction out of assisting [P.T.] to hit [D.T.] so
  hard that he will join me in wishing he was never born."

       The second letter dated September 27, 1994 refers to respondent's
  first letter and asks P.T. to contact him.  Finally, on October 4, 1994,
  respondent sent the third letter to P.T.

 

  requesting, yet again, that she contact him.  In this letter respondent
  identifies himself as an attorney, stating that "the reason I think I can
  help you is that . . . I am a lawyer specializing in domestic relations."

       After holding a hearing, a six-member plurality of the Board concluded
  that respondent made misleading representations about himself.  Respondent
  could not ethically represent P.T. in a divorce action or obtain a
  cost-free divorce for her.  Likewise, he could not ethically assist her to
  make D.T.'s life "a living hell."  The plurality, therefore, determined
  that the letters were likely to create an unjustified expectation about
  respondent's ability to successfully represent P.T. in a divorce action in
  violation of DR 2-101(2).(FN1)

       A five-member concurrence agreed that respondent violated DR 2-101(2),
  but disagreed with the plurality's finding that his conduct amounted to
  "minor misconduct."  Finally, two members dissented, finding that
  respondent's conduct was not a violation of his professional
  responsibilities.

       The Board was also divided as to the proper sanction.  The plurality
  recommends a private admonition, believing this is a case of minor
  misconduct.  The concurrence recommends a public reprimand, believing that
  respondent's misconduct is of a more serious nature.

       Initially, respondent has not appealed the Board's finding that he
  violated DR 2-101(2). Instead, respondent argues that this Court lacks
  jurisdiction to sanction him as an attorney because he has resigned from
  the Vermont bar.  We disagree.

       This Court's disciplinary authority extends to "[a]ny lawyer admitted
  in the state, including any formerly admitted lawyer with respect to acts
  committed prior to resignation." A.O. 9, Rule 4A(1).  Although respondent
  resigned from the Vermont bar on November 15, 1996, the letters predicating
  this disciplinary hearing were sent while respondent was admitted.

 

  This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to sanction respondent
  notwithstanding his resignation.

       We now consider whether a private admonition is the appropriate
  sanction for respondent's misconduct.  Bar counsel essentially argues that
  we should reverse the Board's recommendation that we admonish respondent
  and impose a more stringent sanction because he knowingly violated his
  ethical obligations as an attorney.  We agree.

       When sanctioning attorney misconduct, we have looked to the American
  Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards)
  for guidance.  See, e.g., In re Pressly, 160 Vt. 319, 322,