Silence Isn’t Golden

An attorney’s failure to respond to a bar complaint has led to an interim suspension by the Vermont Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel argues that an immediate interim suspension is warranted here because respondent violated Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b), and she “presently poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” A.O. 9, Rule 22(A). We agree. Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) prohibits a lawyer, “in connection with a disciplinary matter,” from “knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand for information from . . . [a] disciplinary authority.” The record here shows that respondent violated this rule. As set forth above, Disciplinary Counsel repeatedly requested a written response from respondent to a complaint filed against her and respondent failed to comply or cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Her failure to cooperate “significantly impair[s] Disciplinary Counsel’s ability to fulfill [his] obligation to protect the public and it warrants the immediate interim suspension of respondent’s license to practice law.” In re Legus, 2020 VT 40, ¶ 5, 212 Vt. 653, 235 A.3d 517 (mem.); see also In re Tao, 2022 VT 7, ¶ 6, 216 Vt. 596, 273 A.3d 652 (mem.) (reaching similar conclusion where attorney failed to cooperate with Disciplinary Counsel.

Complaint

Disciplinary Counsel’s petition indicates the following. In October 2024, one of respondent’s clients filed a complaint against her with the Professional Responsibility Program. The client alleged in part that respondent neglected to diligently pursue a legal claim on her behalf and misled her as to the status of her claim. Respondent was provided a copy of the complaint, and she was interviewed about the allegations on November 8, 2024, by Screening Counsel. On November 21, 2024, Screening Counsel informed respondent that the allegations of misconduct required further investigation by Disciplinary Counsel and requested that respondent provide Disciplinary Counsel with a written response to the complaint by December 11, 2024.

Respondent did not respond to follow up efforts by Disciplinary Counsel

Hearing nothing for several weeks, Disciplinary Counsel again contacted respondent. In an email, Disciplinary Counsel gave respondent until February 11, 2025, to provide a written response to the client’s complaint, which represented a two-month extension on the original deadline. Disciplinary Counsel told respondent that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to comply would be construed as a willful refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent acknowledged the filing deadline and said that she would have her counsel contact Disciplinary Counsel the following day. She did not do so, however, and on February 13, 2025, Disciplinary Counsel again warned respondent that her “refusal to cooperate with [his] investigation” was a violation of Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) and provided a basis to seek the interim suspension of her law license. Disciplinary Counsel received no response and attempted to contact respondent again on February 25, 2025, without success. He left final voicemail and email messages for respondent on March 28, 2025, and received no response. Disciplinary Counsel then filed this petition.

(Mike Frisch)