Title: In re Doherty

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.94-379; 162 Vt. 631; 650 A.2d 522

[Filed 07-Oct-1994]
                                    ENTRY ORDER

                          SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-379

                                OCTOBER TERM, 1994


         In re John R. Doherty, Esq.  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }          From Professional Conduct
                                      }          Board
                                      }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 92.439


                 In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

 No appeal having been filed from the report of the Professional Conduct
 Board, the recommendation of the dissenting opinion therein is approved. 
 It is hereby ordered that John R. Doherty, Esq., be suspended for two
 months.  The opinions of the Board are attached for publication as part of
 the order of this Court.  A.O. 9, Rule 8E. 
 
 The period of suspension shall begin on November 1, 1994 and end on
 December 1, 1994. 





                                         BY THE COURT:


                                         _______________________________________
                                         Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice


                                         _______________________________________
                                         Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice


                                         _______________________________________
                                         John A. Dooley, Associate Justice


                                         _______________________________________
                                         James L. Morse, Associate Justice


                                         _______________________________________
                                         Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
         [x] Publish

         [ ] Do Not Publish

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    STATE OF VERMONT

                               PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD





   In re: PCB File No. 92.43
          John R. Doherty, Esq.--Respondent



                           NOTICE OF DECISION

                           DECISION NO.  71

       This matter was presented to us by  joint  stipulation  of  the
   parties.    The parties also appeared  before  us  at  a  Rule  8(D)
   hearing on April 1, 1994,  to  urge  the  recommended  sanction  of
   public reprimand.
       We accept the parties stipulation of facts  and  conclude  that
   Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(7) (engaging in  conduct  adversely
   reflecting upon fitness to practice law) by  engaging  in  the  use
   and cultivation of marijuana.
                                 FACTS
       Respondent, John R. Doherty, became a member of the  California
   bar in 1979.  In December of 1990, he joined  the  Vermont  bar.  He
   is presently a member of the firm of  Medor,  McCamley  &  Doherty,
   P.C., in Rutland.
       In September of 1992, pursuant to a search warrant,  State  and
   local police searched Respondent's home and seized marijuana, three
   marijuana plants, and drug paraphernalia.      The police  found  no

 

  evidence of the purchase, sale or  distribution  of  marijuana  at  Mr.
   Doherty's home.  Respondent  informed  the  Board  that  the  marijuana
   was f or his personal use, and we accept that statement as true.
         Respondent was charged with a felony, the knowing and unlawful
   possession of marijuana in  an  amount  consisting  of  more  than  two
   ounces.  He pled guilty to one charge of  cultivation  of  marijuana
   in violation of 18 V.S.A. { 4230 (a)  (1),  a  misdemeanor.  Respondent
   was given a one year  deferred  sentence  with  the  requirements  that
   he  participate  in  substance   abuse   screening,   counselling   and
   treatment as directed-by his  probation  officer  and  contribute  $500
   to   the   Manchester   D.A.R.E.   program   (Drug   Abuse   Resistance
   Education).
                                CONCLUSIONS
         We agree with the stipulation proposed by  the  parties  that  an
   attorney is expected to  conform  to  the  legal  requirements  of  the
   legal system  in  which  he  practices.  Engaging  in  the  cultivation
   and use of illegal  drugs  is  a  serious  violation  of  the  laws  of
   Vermont.
         Although Respondent possessed a sufficient amount of  marijuana
   to constitute  a  felony  under  the  laws  of  this  state,  he  was
   convicted of a misdemeanor.  By  engaging  in  such  conduct  and  being
   convicted  of  a  criminal   offense,   Respondent   violated   DR   1-
   102(A)(7).
         We do not agree, however, with the  parties  proposed  mitigating

 

  factors.  The only mitigating factors  which  we  conclude  are  present
  here  are  an  absence  of  a  prior  disciplinary  record  and  a  co-
  operative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
        We  reject  the  parties,  recommendations   that   three   other
  mitigating factors are also present.        First,  because   Respondent
  received only a deferred sentence,  we  do  not  find  that  there  has
  been  the  imposition  of  other  penalties  of  such  significance  to
  amount  to  a  mitigating  factor.  Second,  based  upon   Respondent's
  statements to the Board  and  his  general  demeanor,  we  cannot  find
  that Respondent appreciates  the  seriousness  of  his  conduct  Or  is
  remorseful  for  engaging  in  a  serious  violation  of  the  criminal
  laws.    Third, the rendering of  legal  services  pro  bono  is  not  a
  mitigating  factor  under  the  ABA   Standards   and   will   not   be
  considered one here.
        In  aggravation,  we  find  that   Respondent   has   substantial
  experience in the practice of law.
        In recommending an appropriate sanction  to  the  Supreme  Court,
  we are guided by the Court's decision in  In  re  Berk  ,  157  VT  524
  (1991) and with our previous experience in that case  as  well  as  the
  companion case of In re mayer, 159 Vt 617(1992)(mem).         In   Berk,
  Respondent was suspended  for  six  months  after  his  arrest  in  New
  Jersey for attempting to  purchase  between  six  and  seven  grams  of
  cocaine.      Criminal   charges   were   dismissed   after   Mr.   Berk
  successfully completed a  pretrial  diversion  program.  Prior  to  his

 

 arrest in New Jersey, Mr. Berk had purchased cocaine  on  at  least
 three other occasions, each time collecting money from friends  and
 sharing the cocaine purchased with them.  At the  time  of  the  New
 Jersey arrest, Mr. Berk met with the cocaine  supplier  who  sought
 his legal advice on a pending drug charge.       Although  Mr.  Berk
 declined to represent the supplier, he did discuss  his  case  with
 him in general terms.
      Although certainly serious, we  consider  the  crime  here  of
 cultivation of three plants in Respondent's  own  vegetable  garden
 to be materially different from the conduct in Berk  for  a  number
 of reasons: First, Respondent here was not, as in  Berk  or  Mayer,
 involved with the more dangerous drug of  cocaine.  In  both  state
 and federal courts nationwide, cocaine  possession,  manufacturing,
 and/or sale is uniformally treated far more  harshly  than  similar
 activity involving marijuana.  Second, Respondent here did  not,  as
 in Berk, engage in a criminal conspiracy with others who knew  him
 to be a lawyer and who had sought his  legal  advice.  Third,  and,
 most importantly, Respondent here was not, as in Berk, involved  in
 soliciting others to purchase  illegal  drugs  or  in  distributing
 illegal drugs to others.
      While we are mindful of the dissenting opinion's concern  that
 the amount of marijuana  cultivated  classified  Respondent's  acts
 here as felonious, we are also mindful that the legislative  intent
 in that classification was to  punish  those  in  the  business  of

 

   distributing marijuana to others.  The  evidence  here  supports  our
   belief that Respondent was using the marijuana for  purely  personal
   consumption.   The number of plants and the absence  of  any  of  the
   typical  indicia  of  drug  trafficking  (e.g.,  scales,  lists   of
   suppliers and/or customers, etc.) confirms such a finding.
        Other jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches in  this
   matter.    We note that  sanctions  of  public  reprimand  have  been
   imposed in  several  cases  involving  misdemeanor  convictions  for
   possession of marijuana.     See Matter  of  Roache,