An attorney who was suspended based on findings of misconduct in his dealings with an elderly client has petitioned for reinstatement in Vermont. 

The Vermont Supreme Court had increased the sanction imposed by the Professional Conduct Board from five months to one year

Respondent ignored numerous red flags—both regarding E.M.’s lack of capacity and the riskiness or unfairness of the transactions that J.M. directed respondent to arrange. Over the course of several transactions spanning more than a year, which were directed exclusively by J.M., and which effectively overhauled E.M.’s existing estate plan to benefit J.M. at the expense of E.M. and her daughters, respondent never obtained more than a “yes or no” answer from E.M. regarding documents he or J.M. had previously prepared and was presenting for her signature. He never met with her privately, never asked her what assets she had or who she wanted to give them to, and never advised her about the risks of and alternatives to the estate-planning documents he had prepared for her. Unlike Mr. Kulig’s client, respondent did not previously know E.M., making it even more imperative that he engage in back-and-forth communication to understand her goals, her assets, and, most critically, why she wished to retain the services of an attorney. Although self-dealing was not an issue in this case as in Kulig, we are deeply troubled by the $1000 gift that respondent accepted from J.M…

The flagrance of respondent’s violations—the completeness of his failure to even attempt to maintain anything close to a normal attorney-client relationship with E.M. in the face of numerous suspicious circumstances—is magnified by E.M.’s particularly vulnerable state, respondent’s extensive experience in this area of the law and dealing with elderly clients, respondent’s lack of recognition of the gravity of these transgressions, the troubling circumstances under which he accepted a $1000 gift from J.M., and the significant harm respondent caused. Given all the circumstances, respondent poses a serious risk to potential future clients and publictrust in the legal profession. “[T]he public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.” Id. ¶ 58 (quotation omitted). Therefore, “ ‘[t]he appropriate sanction must be