Court Opinion

ID: 9961847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 22:15:19.843673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:02.679930
License: Public Domain

ENTRY ORDER

                                             2024 VT 22

                            SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 24-AP-070

                                       MARCH TERM, 2024

 In re Eva P. Vekos, Esq.                            }    Original Jurisdiction
 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)                    }
                                                     }    Professional Responsibility Board
                                                     }
                                                     }

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

         ¶ 1.     Respondent was placed on interim suspension status on March 27, 2024, based on
her failure to cooperate with Disciplinary Counsel “in connection with a disciplinary matter.”
V.R.Pr.C. 8.1(b). See generally In re Vekos, 2024 VT 18, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __ (mem.). The
Court found that respondent “knowingly fail[ed] to respond to a lawful demand for information
from . . . [a] disciplinary authority” in violation of Rule 8.1(b), and that, due to her noncooperation,
she “presently pose[d] a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” A.O. 9, Rule 22(A); see
Vekos, 2024 VT 18, ¶¶ 11-15.

       ¶ 2.    Respondent now moves for dissolution of the interim-suspension order under
Administrative Order 9, Rule 22(D). She asserts that she has cooperated with Disciplinary
Counsel’s requests for information and no longer presents a risk of harm to the public. Disciplinary
Counsel agrees that respondent has replied to his prior inquiries about the reasons, nature, and
causes of her now-concluded medical leave. Consequently, Disciplinary Counsel does not oppose
respondent’s request to dissolve the interim suspension.

      ¶ 3.   We grant the respondent’s motion given her recent cooperation with Disciplinary
Counsel. As nothing remains pending in this Court, this matter is closed.

       The motion for dissolution of respondent’s interim-suspension order is granted.

                                                  BY THE COURT:

                                                  Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

                                                  Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

                                                  Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

                                                  William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

                                                  Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice