Title: In re Shepperson
Citation: 164 Vt 636, 674 A.2d 1273
Docket Number: 
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 1996

In re Shepperson Annotate this Case In re Shepperson (95-133); 164 Vt 636; 674 A.2d 1273 [Filed 24-Jan-1996] ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-133 NOVEMBER TERM, 1995 In re Carlyle Shepperson } APPEALED FROM: } } } Professional Conduct Board } } In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Respondent Carlyle Shepperson appeals the Professional Conduct Board's recommendation that he be disbarred for violating DR 6-101(A)(1) (lawyer shall not handle legal matter that lawyer is incompetent to handle) and DR 6-101(A)(2) (lawyer shall not handle legal matter without adequate preparation). We suspend respondent indefinitely until he can demonstrate that he is fit to practice law. In June 1991, a justice of this Court not taking part in this decision filed a complaint with the Board concerning the quality of respondent's legal submissions. In March 1993, the Board and respondent entered into a remedial stipulation in which respondent agreed not to engage in the practice of law while he completed a legal writing tutorial. The stipulation provided that respondent would participate in periodic tutoring sessions to develop skills in legal analysis, persuasive writing techniques, writing organization, and use of legal authority, proper citation form, and proper formatting for memoranda and briefs. At the end of the tutorial program, which was to last for a minimum of six months, respondent was to prepare a ten-page legal writing sample and a self-written evaluation of his progress. Respondent was given until September 1, 1993 to report on his progress with the tutor. On September 15, 1993, respondent wrote bar counsel that he would not be completing the tutorial, and that he had left the United States for an indefinite period of time. Bar counsel filed a petition of misconduct in June 1994, charging respondent with violating DR 6-101(A)(1) & (2). Respondent filed memoranda with the Board but did not appear for the disciplinary hearing held in December 1994. A majority of the Board adopted the hearing panel's recommendation that respondent be disbarred, with two dissenting members stating that they would suspend respondent indefinitely until he proved he was fit to practice law. All members of the Board agreed with the hearing panel's findings that between 1985 and 1992 respondent repeatedly submitted legal briefs to this Court that were generally incomprehensible, made arguments without explaining the claimed legal errors, presented no substantiated legal structure to the arguments, and devoted large portions of the narrative to irrelevant philosophical rhetoric. The briefs contained numerous citation errors that made identification of the cases difficult, cited cases for irrelevant or incomprehensible reasons, made legal arguments without citation to authority, and inaccurately represented the law contained in the cited cases. All members of the Board also agreed with the hearing panel's conclusions that (1) respondent's briefs were not competently prepared and fell below the minimum standard for brief-writing expected of a practicing attorney in this state; (2) respondent failed to prepare adequately or give appropriate attention to his legal work; and (3) respondent did not use proper care to safeguard the interests of his clients. A review of the exhibits in this case supports the Board's findings that respondent disserved his clients by preparing inadequate and incomprehensible legal briefs, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(1) & (2). Respondent's brief in this matter is a further example of the deficiencies noted by the Board. In over ninety pages, respondent fails to raise a legitimate legal issue or cite a single authority in support of his arguments. The gist of his harangue against the legal system is that the Board and this Court have violated his freedoms of speech and religion and limited his ability to think in diverse ways by dictating what is and what is not a proper legal argument. If we were to accept this argument, it would preclude any oversight of attorney competence in representing members of the public. Respondent may represent himself as he pleases, but he cannot be permitted to represent others in a manner that, under reasonable and accepted standards, fails to safeguard his clients' interests. Indeed, the primary purpose of the attorney disciplinary system is to protect the public. In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 532, 602 A.2d 946, 950 (1991); ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 1.1, Commentary (1991). The only real issue on appeal is whether respondent should be disbarred or suspended indefinitely.(FN1) According to the American Bar Association Standards, which we have found helpful in determining appropriate sanctions, see Berk, 157 Vt. at 532, 602 A.2d at 950, "Disbarment should be imposed on lawyers who are found to have engaged in multiple instances of incompetent behavior . . . [or] whose course of conduct demonstrates that they cannot or will not master the knowledge and skills necessary for minimally competent practice." Standard 4.51, Commentary. Here, respondent's course of conduct in filing several incomprehensible briefs over a period of seven years and his failure to follow through with the stipulated tutorial program designed to improve his skills demonstrate his inability or refusal to understand and apply fundamental legal doctrines and procedures. Id. Standard 4.51. Nevertheless, because there is no indication that respondent's conduct was intentional or based on corrupt motives, we adopt the minority position of the Board and suspend respondent until he can prove that he is fit to practice law. See ABA Standard 9.32(b) (absence of dishonest or selfish motive is mitigating factor); cf. In re Hogan, 490 N.E.2d 1280 , 1281-82 (Ill. 1986) (attorney's inability to draft comprehensible briefs, which does not involve corrupt motive or moral turpitude, warrants placement on inactive status during period of rehabilitation until competence to engage in practice of law is demonstrated). In no event, however, shall respondent's suspension be less than six months. See A.O. 9, Rule 7(2); id. Rule 20B, D. Judgment that Carlyle Shepperson be suspended, effective upon issuance of this order, for not less than six months and until he has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court, via motion to the Professional Conduct Board, that he is fit to practice law in this state. The Board is empowered to require such further study and examination, oral or written, as it deems appropriate to the circumstances. BY THE COURT: _______________________________________ Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice _______________________________________ Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice _______________________________________ Albert W. Barney, Chief Justice (Ret.) Specially Assigned _______________________________________ Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice (Ret.) Specially Assigned _______________________________________ Wynn Underwood, Associate Justice (Ret.) Specially Assigned ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnotes FN1. We grant respondent's motion to file an enlarged brief, but deny his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which is without merit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 84.PCB [03-Mar-1995] STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD In re: Carlyle Shepperson, Respondent PCB File 91.40 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NO. 84 Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 8E, the Professional Conduct Board hereby reports to the Supreme Court its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended disposition. The Board has reviewed the report of the hearing panel dated January 6, 1995, and adopts as its own the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. We also held a hearing on this matter pursuant to Rule 8(D) on March 3, 1995. Although Respondent submitted a brief, he did not appear. We further adopt as our own the hearing panel's recommended sanction. For the reasons contained in the panel's report, we recommend that Respondent be disbarred. Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 3rd day of March, 1995. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD /s/ ___________________________ Deborah S. Banse, Chair /s/ ______________________________________________________ George Crosby Donald Marsh /s/ ______________________________________________________ Joseph F. Cahill, Esq. Karen Miller, Esq. /s/ ______________________________________________________ Nancy Corsones, Esq. Garvan Murtha, Esq. /s/ ______________________________________________________ Paul S. Ferber, Esq. Edward Zuccaro, Esq. /s/ /s/ ______________________________________________________ Nancy Foster Ruth Stokes /s/ ______________________________________________________ Rosalyn L. Hunneman Jane Woodruff, Esq. DISSENT We agree with the findings of facts and conclusions of law, but would recommend that Respondent be suspended indefinitely until he can prove that he is fit to practice law. /s/ /s/ _____________________________________________________ Robert P. Keiner, Esq. Robert O'Neill, Esq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD IN RE: Carlyle Shepperson PCB File No. 91-40 HEARING PANEL'S FINDINGS OF FACT, RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED SANCTION PROCEDURAL HISTORY In a Petition Of Misconduct dated June 28, 1994, respondent was charged by Bar Counsel with violations of DR 6-101(A)(7) and DR 6-101(A)(2) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On August 9, 1994, the Petition Of Misconduct was amended by charging that the violation was of DR 6-101(A)(1) instead of (7) which was a misprint. The matter was heard before a Hearing Panel on December 9, 1994 in the Vermont District Court, Brattleboro, Vermont. The Hearing Panel consisted of J. Garvan Murtha, Esq., who served as Chair; Deborah S. Banse, Esq. and Ms. Rosalyn Hunneman. Present at the hearing was Shelley A. Hill, Esq., Bar Counsel. Respondent did not appear for the hearing. The Board was advised by Kerry B. DeWolfe, Esq. by correspondence dated November 21, 1994 that Mr. Shepperson was aware of the hearing of December 9, 1994, but would not be present. Cathryn Nunlist, Esq. was the only witness appearing at the hearing. Respondent filed several pre-hearing motions, including a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Motion to Strike, all of which were denied by an Order dated November 23, 1994. Subsequent to November 23, 1994, respondent filed numerous additional motions, including a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Transfer, Motion to Amend or Reconsider, Notice of Appeal, Motion to Amend, Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion To Transfer To A Legal and Impartial Court. The most recent motion filed by the respondent prior to the hearing on December 9, 1994 was entitled "Motion for Permission to File Motions" and "Notice to Objection To And Appeal of Order 23 November". These motions were received by the Board on December 7, 1994. The Hearing Panel considered all of respondent's pending motions at the hearing and they were DENIED. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Carlyle Shepperson was admitted to the Vermont Bar in 1982. He is a graduate of Vermont Law School. 2. Between 1985 and 1992 respondent submitted nine (9) legal briefs to the Vermont Supreme Court (Exhibits 1 through 9). 3. All of the briefs were written and signed by the respondent. 4. All but two (2) briefs submitted by the respondent to the Vermont Supreme Court fell below the minimum standard for brief writing expected of a practicing attorney in the State of Vermont. 5. The brief filed in the Supreme Court in the matter of "State of Vermont vs. Aaron Johnson" dated October 19, 1991 and the reply brief filed by respondent in the matter of "State of Vermont vs. Aaron Johnson" dated January 9, 1992 were appropriate and competently prepared. 6. However, the remaining briefs prepared and filed by the respondent were, in general, incomprehensible, did not aid the Court and did not meet the standard of what is expected of a reasonably qualified attorney. 7. The briefs in question consistently failed to identify the issues or the rules by which the issues should be resolved; made arguments without explanation as to what constituted the legal error; presented no substantiated legal structure to the argument; and devoted large portions of the narrative to philosophical rhetoric. 8. In addition, on a technical basis, the briefs in question contained many citation errors; legal propositions were not often cited at all; citations were so incomplete or inaccurate that identification of the cases was difficult or impossible; cases were inaccurately represented; cases were cited for reasons that were incomprehensible; cases were cited from other jurisdictions that were neither binding, persuasive nor relevant. Further, the briefs were so filled with spelling and grammatical errors as to cast a doubt on the credibility of the respondent. 9. DR 6-101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility entitled "Failing To Act Competently" states in part: (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Handle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it. (2) Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances. 10. In February, 1993 and April, 1993, the respondent and the Professional Conduct Board entered into a Stipulation whereby the respondent agreed not to engage in the practice of law whatsoever until he completed the requirements for an advanced degree and, subsequent thereto, retained a legal writing expert, Janis M. Murcic, Esq., to develop respondent's skills in legal analysis, persuasive writing techniques, etc. (Exhibit 10). 11. On September 27, 1993, respondent wrote Bar Counsel indicating "........I will be unable to complete the stipulation at the present time." (Exhibit 13). Thereafter, Bar Counsel initiated a Petition of Misconduct. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Seven of nine briefs filed with the Vermont Supreme Court by the respondent between 1985 and 1992 were not competently prepared. 2. The preparation of the briefs in question fall below the minimum standards expected of a practicing attorney in the State of Vermont. 3. Respondent did not use proper care to safeguard the interests of his clients. He did not diligently undertake the work and study necessary to qualify himself as a competent preparer of briefs submitted to the Vermont Supreme Court. 4. He failed to prepare adequately for and give appropriate attention to his legal work. 6. As a result of his actions respondent failed to act competently and violated DR 6-101(A)(1) and DR 6-101(A)(2). RECOMMENDED SANCTION Respondent repeatedly violated the duties owed to his clients, to the Court and to the legal system. Over a period of seven years respondent submitted seven briefs to the Vermont Supreme Court which indicated he did not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures. The American Bar Association Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions states: "Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer's course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer's conduct causes injury or potential injury to a client". (Section 4.51 of the Standards). The respondent received a private admonition on April 5, 1991, for a violation of DR 7-106(C)(6). The respondent engaged in multiple instances of incompetent behavior. Seven briefs submitted to the Vermont Supreme Court demonstrate that Mr. Shepperson cannot or will not master the knowledge and skills necessary for minimally competent practice. The Hearing Panel is convinced the respondent's unethical conduct is so significant and wide-ranging that he is a threat to the public, the profession, the courts and his clients. The Hearing Panel recommends he be disbarred from the practice of law. DATED: January 6, 1995 Respectfully submitted: /s/ J. Garvan Murtha, Esq. /s/ Deborah S. Banse,Esq. /s/ Rosalyn Hunneman