Title: In re PCB File No. 92.27

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re PCB File No. 92.27  (96-600); 167 Vt. 379; 708 A.2d 568

[Filed 16-Jan-1998]

       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. 96-600

In re PCB File No. 92.27                     Supreme Court

                                             Original Jurisdiction

                                             June Term, 1997

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

Thomas J. Kennedy, Newton, Pennsylvania, Appellee.

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

       GIBSON, J.   Bar counsel appeals from an order of the chair of a
  Professional Conduct Board (PCB) hearing panel requiring her to provide
  respondent with a redacted version of notes and summaries of witness
  statements prepared by her investigator.  Although bar counsel has turned
  the materials over to respondent, she requests that the Court declare the
  notes of witness interviews prepared by her investigator to be privileged
  documents under A.O. 9, Rule 10B(1) that are not discoverable absent a
  showing of good cause.  We rule that such documents fall within the
  attorney-work-product privilege and are not discoverable absent a showing
  of substantial need and undue hardship, and a finding of good cause.

       This matter began with a misconduct petition filed by bar counsel,
  which resulted, after a hearing, in an admonition by the PCB.  Thus, the
  merits of the petition have been decided, and no merits appeal has been
  filed by respondent.  Bar counsel, however, appeals from an interim ruling
  by the chair of the panel in response to a discovery request by respondent
  pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 10B, which ruling stated as follows:

     (1) [Bar counsel] is to gather all notes and/or summaries of
     witnesses provided to her by her investigator.

     (2) From those notes/summaries, [bar counsel] is to redact any

 

     mental impressions, strategy suggestions, opinions, editorial
     comments and any other nonfactual information provided by the
     investigator.  The originals are to be saved and will be reviewed
     by the chair of the hearing panel to assure compliance with this
     order.

     (3) [Bar counsel] is to provide [respondent] the redacted
     notes/summaries forthwith.

       Bar counsel filed a motion for extraordinary relief in this Court, but
  the motion was denied.  Accordingly, she complied with the discovery
  ruling, and following the PCB decision on the merits, she appeals the
  discovery order.

                                 I. Mootness

       Bar counsel first addresses the evident mootness of the question on
  appeal.  In State v. Tallman, we recognized an exception to the mootness
  doctrine for a narrow class of cases that are "`capable of repetition, yet
  evading review.'"  148 Vt. 465, 469,