Title: In re Keitel

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Keitel (2000-290); 172 Vt. 537; 772 A.2d 507

[Filed 02-Mar-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 00-290

                             JANUARY TERM, 2001

In re Sheldon Keitel, Esq.	       }	Original Jurisdiction
                                       }
                                       }
   	                               }	Professional Responsibility Board
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1999-121

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

       This case concerns a hearing panel decision of the Professional
  Responsibility Board ("the  Board") imposing a public reprimand on
  respondent Sheldon Keitel, after finding that he had  violated the Code of
  Professional Responsibility for inappropriate comments made in written 
  correspondence to the Washington Family Court and to the Board.  Pursuant
  to Rule 11E of  Administrative Order 9, this Court, on its own motion,
  ordered a review of the hearing panel's  decision and invited the parties
  to file briefs.  The Office of Disciplinary Counsel urges this Court to 
  find that: (1) lawyers on inactive status remain subject to the ethics
  rules; (2) respondent violated DR  7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-106(C)(6) of the
  Code of Professional Responsibility; and (3) a public  reprimand is
  appropriate.  Respondent asserts that neither the Court nor the Board of
  Professional  Responsibility retain jurisdiction over attorneys on inactive
  status because it effectively infringes  upon his First Amendment right to
  freedom of association. 

       While we agree that this Court and the Board retain jurisdiction over
  attorneys on inactive  status, we decline to adopt the hearing panel's
  legal conclusion that respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR
  7-106(C)(6). (FN1)  We further decline to adopt the hearing panel's
  sanction, but  in doing so determine that the conduct which gave rise to
  the sanction may be considered in the event  that respondent seeks to
  reactivate the status of his license to practice law in Vermont. (FN2)

       In October 1999, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a formal
  petition, charging  respondent with violating DR 7-102(A)(1) and DR
  7-106(C)(6) for comments made in a cover letter  accompanying his notice of
  intent to appeal a decision of the Washington Family Court to which he  was
  a party.  Respondent's cover letter, addressed to the clerk of the court, 
  included an inappropriate 

 

  personal attack on the family court magistrate.  Respondent was
  representing himself pro se in  divorce proceedings before the court, and
  although an attorney admitted to practice law in Vermont,  he was on
  inactive status.

       In March 2000, the Board convened a sanctions hearing. Respondent did
  not appear, but  delivered a letter to the hearing panel which included
  additional inappropriate comments directed at  the same magistrate.  The
  hearing panel reconvened in June, and issued its findings of fact, 
  conclusions of law and sanction.  Respondent did not appeal, but filed an
  open letter with this Court.

       The Vermont Constitution states that the Supreme Court "shall have . . .
  disciplinary authority  concerning all judicial officers and attorneys at
  law in the State." Vt. Const. ch. II, § 30.  Pursuant to  this authority,
  the Court promulgated rules for attorney discipline, and created the
  Professional  Responsibility Board.  See Administrative Order 9, Permanent
  Rules Governing Establishment and  Operation of the Professional
  Responsibility Program.  The Board holds jurisdiction over:

    [a]ny lawyer admitted in the state, including any formerly
    admitted lawyer  with respect to acts committed prior to
    resignation, suspension,  disbarment, or transfer to inactive
    status, or with respect to acts committed  subsequent thereto
    which amount to the practice of law or constitute a  violation of
    these rules or of the Code of Professional Responsibility or  any
    rules or code subsequently adopted by the Court in lieu thereof. 

  A.O. 9, Rule 5(A)(1).  The rule unequivocally vests the Board with
  jurisdiction over lawyers who  violate the rules of ethics prior, and
  subsequent, to their transfer to inactive status.  See also In re  Taylor,
  PCB Decision No. 148, 12/20/99 (". . . whether Respondent is active or
  inactive, he is still a  member of the bar.")

       The Office of Disciplinary Counsel contends that the record in this
  case conclusively  establishes that respondent  acted in violation of DR
  7-102(A)(1) and DR 7-106(C)(6) of the Code of  Professional Responsibility
  in his correspondence with the family court magistrate and the Board,  and
  that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for his actions.

       This Court makes its own decisions as to attorney discipline,
  according deference to the  Board's findings. See In re Hunter, 167 Vt.
  219, 227,