Admissions Draw Amended Charges

The recent resolution of a criminal case led Vermont Disciplinary Counsel to seek amendment to disciplinary charges filed in 2019 and stayed shortly thereafter

In November 2023, as part of a Diversion Resolution Agreement with the Attorney General’s Office, Respondent provided certain personal representations of fact and sworn testimony to the Bennington Superior Court Criminal Division in order to resolve a parallel criminal prosecution of him, State v. Fink. This prosecution concerned the same July 17, 2017 sexual assault by Respondent on JH that formed the original basis for this disciplinary proceeding. Respondent’s recent representations and testimonial admissions to the Bennington Superior Court concerning the non consensual nature of his July 17, 2017 encounter with JH and the intimate areas of her body touched by him directly contradict written representations made by Respondent, through his counsel, to predecessor Disciplinary Counsel in an August 2018 letter.

Therefore, in keeping with Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s directive that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” Disciplinary Counsel seeks to amend the February 2019 Petition of Misconduct in this matter to allege additional disciplinary rule violations against Respondent under Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a), 8.4(c) and 3.3(a)(1). The proposed amendments seek to charge Respondent with (1) making false representations to Disciplinary Counsel in August 2018 when he unequivocally denied his nowadmitted coercive and lewd physical contact with JH during a July 17, 2017 meeting (proposed Count 2); and (2) for making false statements and/or misleading omissions to the Bennington Superior Court in November 2023 about the full extent and true nature of his sexually violent conduct toward JH on July 17, 2017 (proposed Count 3).

The original charges and answer are linked.

Bennington Banner reported on the criminal case

The victim of a 2017 sexual assault in Peru involving a well-known Vermont attorney wants to set the record straight as to what happened to her over six years ago, her years-long struggle to find justice, and the reason why she ultimately agreed to a lenient outcome for the defendant in the case.

The Banner published a story on Wednesday detailing the deal reached between prosecutors from the Vermont Attorney General’s office and Melvin Fink, 80, of Springfield and his defense lawyer, David Sleigh. The deal allowed Fink, initially charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct, to participate in a diversion program that does not require a guilty plea and — if completed — would erase the case entirely from the record.

Fink filed motions to dismiss two of the charges, granted in 2020 and 2023, leaving one felony count still standing.

When Bennington State’s Attorney Erica Marthage caught wind of the deal on Monday, she immediately raised her objections, filing a notice of opposition on the grounds that the sexual nature of the charges would not qualify for Vermont’s diversion program. She also added that there was no required memorandum of understanding with Bennington’s diversion program. Marthage was especially incensed that Fink would have the whole case erased from the record if he completed the program.

In a hearing Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Paul Barkus announced that, because of the objection, the state would change the felony charge of lewd and lascivious conduct to a “prohibited conduct” charge, a misdemeanor, qualifying Fink for the program. Barkus also announced that he, at his discretion, would transfer the diversion to Rutland, where it would be accepted.

Backus told the courtroom that the victim agreed with the outcome.

The victim, Jeanne Howell, reached out to the Banner on Wednesday to correct some details from the hearing, but agreed to share her story with us.

Fink was a family court attorney representing a man, John Howell, in a custody case during both 2016 and 2017. On June 6 of that year, Fink recused himself from representing Howell in court for unknown reasons.

However, according to the victim in the case, Jeanne Howell stayed on with the family in a professional, advisory role. Howell told the Banner that Fink told her he could still help with the case, but would have to go through the mother, Howell, instead of directly with John Howell, for future hearings.

On July 17, 2017, according to a police affidavit, Howell told the police that she and Fink exchanged phone calls and emails relating to an upcoming hearing in her son’s case. It was decided that she would meet Fink at his legal office. According to Howell, Fink called back and requested the meeting be switched to her home in Peru. Howell stated that she was home preparing for a showing of her house by a real estate agent when, all of a sudden, she turned around to see Fink in her home, standing several rooms in from the front entrance.

Howell stated that he then grabbed the back of her head, pulling it toward him, and pushed his tongue in her mouth. At the same time, Howell says Fink, with his other hand, grabbed her by the back, sliding it down to her buttocks, then pushing his fingers into her anus from outside her clothing.

“This has been going on for the past six years,” Howell told the Banner in an interview a day after the hearing.

Howell told us she wanted to tell her side of the story to clear up any misunderstandings of why she agreed to the diversion and why it matters.

“I was not initially in agreement with that,” Howell said. “I wanted it to stay as a felony and I was ready to go to trial. However, after having multiple meetings with the attorney general and the victim advocate, I was told, ‘Okay, if he goes to trial, he wins, or he loses, it doesn’t matter, but he will never confess to what he did during that trial.’”

“I wanted him to confess,” Howell said. “At the hearing, we had four or five versions of a statement he would read. They slowly changed it. It finally came back to what we would accept. I want to say I’m part of this diversion, telling the State of Vermont and its residents that this is who he is. I wouldn’t have gotten that chance if it had gone to trial. I just need justice for me, my son, and my granddaughter. This was a way of forcing him to say what happened so everyone knows.”

Howell feels that although the diversion program might eventually erase the case, at least for now there is a record of it, and that maybe some good can come from it.

“I just have not been doing nothing for five years,” Howell said. “It’s not right what happened. I do not want that to happen to anyone else. You know, it was just horrible. I live with that. I want people to know that I have fought to go to trial all these years. I realized what would be the outcome if he did not confess to anything. At least for now he does not harm anyone again. This was the best outcome for the safety of the females. It’s time.”

According to the attorney general’s office, Fink will now participate in the diversion program through Rutland.

The Rutland County State’s Attorney, Ian Sullivan, reached out to correct a detail in yesterday’s story which said that his office was part of the decision and allowed the diversion to take place in Rutland. The Rutland State’s Attorney stated he did not participate in the case and did not decide to enable it.

The Vermont Supreme Court previously suspended Respondent for 30 days based on a violation of Rule 4.2. (Mike Frisch)