Title: In re Blais

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Blais  (2002-086); 174 Vt. 628; 817 A.2d 1266

[Filed 19-Dec-2002]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-086

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2002

In re Norman R. Blais                 }  APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }  Professional Responsibility Board
                                      }  
                                      }
                                      }  DOCKET NOS. 1998.033, 1999.043,
                                                     and 2000.042 

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

  ¶ 1    Respondent Norman Blais appeals from the  recommendation of the
  Hearing Panel of the Board of  Professional Responsibility that he be
  suspended from the  practice of law for a period of five months as a result
  of  repeated instances of neglect of client matters and  misrepresentation. 
  Respondent puts forth three arguments:  (1) the period of suspension
  recommended by the Hearing  Panel is inconsistent with recent decisions of
  this Court  involving similar conduct; (2) the sanction agreed between 
  respondent and disciplinary counsel is more than sufficient  to protect the
  public; and (3) the Hearing Panel's  recommendation of a five-month
  suspension is founded on  unproved facts and a mischaracterization of the
  record.  We  adopt the Hearing Panel's decision and suspend respondent  for
  a period of five months.

  ¶ 2    Respondent has been a licensed attorney in the  State of
  Vermont since 1976.  In June 2001, respondent was  charged with misconduct
  consisting of five instances of  neglecting client matters and three
  instances of  misrepresentation.(FN1)  The parties stipulated to the facts
  of  the misconduct before the Hearing Panel, and the Hearing Panel  also
  made additional findings of fact.  These facts are  summarized below.
  
  ¶ 3    PRB File No. 1998.033  In the Fall of 1994,  respondent was
  hired by Guy and Dianne Henning to pursue a  personal injury claim against
  the parents of a child who had  injured their daughter during a Youth
  Soccer Association-sponsored game in October 1994.  Respondent was also
  hired to  file a medical claim under the policy carried by the soccer 
  association.  Respondent neglected to file the medical claim  within ninety
  days of the injury, as required by the policy.   Payment under the policy
  was later denied when new counsel  took over the case in the summer of 1997
  and presented the  claim to the soccer association.  In July 1996, during a 
  meeting to review and sign the superior court complaint,  respondent told
  the Hennings that he would file the complaint  with the court, which he
  failed to do.  During the next year,  respondent on several occasions told
  the Hennings that the  case would take more time and that the court docket
  moved  slowly.  He never filed the claim with the court, however, nor  did
  he tell the Hennings that he had not filed the claim.  In  the summer of
  1997, the Hennings hired new counsel who  eventually brought the personal
  injury claim to a successful  conclusion.  Respondent's neglect and
  misrepresentations  between the fall of 1994 and the summer of 1997 exposed
  his  clients to potentially serious injury, but no actual injury  resulted
  other than his clients' anxiety.

  ¶ 4     PRB File No. 1999.043 - In the summer of 1994,  respondent was
  hired to represent Andrew Henry in connection  with two charges of DWI.  In
  February 1995, with respondent's  assistance, Mr. Henry pled guilty to the
  first DWI, and the  second DWI was dismissed.  After the term of suspension
  for  the first DWI ended, the Department of Motor Vehicles failed  to
  reinstate Mr. Henry's driver's license.  Respondent agreed  to represent
  Mr. Henry in this matter, and accepted a retainer  for that purpose. 
  Respondent failed to take action on the  matter, however, and Mr. Henry
  eventually hired new counsel  who was able to obtain reinstatement of Mr.
  Henry's license in  January 1999.  Respondent returned his retainer.  Due
  to  respondent's inaction from the summer of 1995 through November  of
  1998, Mr. Henry was without a driver's license from about  April 1995 until
  January 1999 and suffered a resulting  impairment of his employment
  opportunities.

  ¶ 5    PRB File No. 2000.042, Count I - In April 1987,  Ulla Anderson
  Kauffman hired respondent to represent her in a  claim for injuries
  resulting from a car accident in 1986.  On  several occasions , respondent
  assured Ms. Kauffman that her  claim was proceeding appropriately and gave
  her the impression  that progress was slow because the court docket was
  crowded.   Respondent neglected the matter, however, and allowed the 
  statute of limitations for the claim to expire.  Ms. Kauffman  ultimately
  filed a malpractice action against respondent and  received compensation
  for her injuries from respondent's  malpractice insurance carrier. 
  Respondent's neglect and  misrepresentations from the spring of 1987 until
  late 1990 or  early 1991 exposed his client to potentially serious injury, 
  but no actual injury resulted other than delay in the payment  of the
  claim.

  ¶ 6    PRB File No. 2000.042, Count II - In 1988,  Marjorie Bicknell
  hired respondent to represent her in a  divorce action in which the
  property settlement was the main  contested issue.  In 1989, respondent
  told Ms. Bicknell that  he would arrange for an appraisal of the parties'
  house but   he failed to do so.  Respondent eventually obtained a property 
  settlement for Ms. Bicknell without having gotten an  appraisal. 
  Respondent's neglect exposed his client to  potential injury.  The Hearing
  Panel was unable to determine  whether actual injury had occurred because
  the client  ultimately agreed to proceed without an appraisal in order to 
  expedite the divorce so she could remarry.

  ¶ 7    PRB File No. 2000.042, Count III - In 1990, Ms.  Bicknell hired
  respondent to represent her and her sister in a  personal injury claim
  arising from a car accident in 1989.   Respondent neglected the matter,
  failed to return telephone  calls to his client, and allowed the statute of
  limitations  for the claim to expire.  On more than one occasion, 
  respondent falsely assured Ms. Bicknell that her claim was  proceeding
  appropriately.  Ms. Bicknell and her sister later  filed a legal
  malpractice claim against respondent and  received a settlement through
  that process.  Respondent's  neglect and misrepresentations from the fall
  of 1990 to  December 1992 exposed his client to potentially serious 
  injury, but no actual injury resulted other than delay in the  payment of
  her claim.

  ¶ 8    In addition to the stipulation of facts and a  joint
  recommendation as to conclusions of law concerning the  particular
  violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a matter  entrusted to the lawyer)
  and DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in  conduct involving dishonest, fraud,
  deceit, or  misrepresentation), respondent and the Office of Disciplinary 
  Counsel agreed to a sanction recommendation of two months'  suspension
  followed by a probationary period of eighteen to  thirty-six months.  The
  Hearing Panel accepted the parties'  stipulations of fact and adopted the
  joint recommendation as  to conclusions of law concerning the particular
  violations of  DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(4), but did not adopt the 
  recommended sanction.  Instead, after a hearing at which  respondent and
  two of his former clients testified, the Panel  imposed a suspension of
  five months, to be followed by a  probationary period of eighteen to
  thirty-six months.   Respondent now appeals only the duration of the
  suspension.

  ¶ 9    On review, this Court must accept the Panel's  findings of fact
  unless they are clearly erroneous.  In re  Karpin, 162 Vt. 163, 165,