Interim Suspension Continues For Alleged Crime

The Vermont Supreme Court has denied a petition to dissolve the temporary suspension of an attorney 

Respondent was charged with reckless endangerment after allegedly pointing a loaded firearm at a store clerk. She represents herself in that criminal matter and has pleaded not guilty.

Our prior coverage is linked here and quotes the Caledonia Record

A Walden attorney has been accused of pulling a gun on a store clerk because she was upset about a social distancing sign.

Disciplinary Counsel had been unable to contact the attorney when the petition to suspend was filed

We granted the petition pursuant to Administrative Order 9, Rule 18(A), on the ground that respondent “committed a violation of the rules of professional responsibility as adopted by the Court” and she “presently poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.”

The present motion

On May 26, 2020, respondent filed a “Confidential Motion to Vacate Order and Seal Records.” Disciplinary Counsel responded to this motion. On June 5, 2020, respondent filed a “Confidential Motion to Dissolve and Dismiss” the interim order. She filed an additional pleading immediately before the June 15, 2020 hearing on her motion to dissolve. In these filings, respondent contends that she did not receive notice of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for interim suspension sufficient to comply with the applicable rules and due process. She points to the fact that Disciplinary Counsel made calls to her from an out-of-state telephone number, explains that she has had problems with email because she has been the target of hackers, and contends that she had no notice of this proceeding until she received this Court’s interim suspension order. Respondent emphasizes that she is entitled to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights in declining to answer Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries. In addition, she argues that the Court’s prior order contained insufficient findings. She also contends that this Court should dissolve the interim suspension because it did not schedule a hearing within two days of her motion. She further argues that she is entitled to a transcript of the prior hearing pursuant to Administrative Order 9, Rule 16(F). Finally, she asks that we treat the prior order and these proceedings as confidential.

The court

Unless and until respondent responds to Disciplinary Counsel’s requests for information about her current law practice, active cases, trust accounts, whether a disability status may be warranted, and other matters about which Disciplinary Counsel seeks to inquire, we conclude that respondent poses a threat to the public. Respondent’s behavior has significantly impaired Disciplinary Counsel’s ability to fulfill her obligation to protect the public and warrants immediate interim suspension of respondent’s license to practice law.

As to her 5th Amendment rights

Respondent is not required to answer questions that implicate her right against self incrimination and may invoke that right if Disciplinary Counsel asks a question that would require such a waiver. But at least some of the matters Disciplinary Counsel has indicated she seeks to investigate may not implicate respondent’s Fifth Amendment privilege.

(Mike Frisch)