01-04 A prosecutor named as one of over 200 defendants in a frivolous civil lawsuit does not violate Rule 4.5 in continuing to prosecute a criminal action which was instituted against the plaintiff prior to the civil action.
97-14 Lawyer A must withdraw from any further participation as a member of a municipal zoning board in all proceedings related to a particular conditional use application, where Lawyer B, a member of Lawyer A’s firm, represents clients who have challenged the zoning board’s jurisdiction to reconsider an earlier decision that had been favorable to the interests of Lawyer B’s clients. Similarly, Lawyer B has a non-waivable duty to withdraw from further representing clients in a matter on which Lawyer A had participated in a quasi-judicial capacity.
97-11 An attorney who has received a disciplinary suspension imposed by the Supreme Court is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Professional Conduct Board and remains bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Disciplinary Rules. A suspended attorney may be employed as a law clerk, paralegal, investigator or in any capacity as a lay person, by a licensed lawyer or law firm on an hourly or salaried basis, but may not share in legal fees. Such employment should be restricted to activities that are performed for the employing attorney, as opposed to direct services to clients; must be supervised by the employing attorney; and must not be activities that constitute the practice of law; nor should the employment arrangement give the appearance to the public or to clients that the suspended attorney is permitted to practice law.
The Committee on Professional Responsibility issues this Opinion after considerable discussion and debate, which reflected differences among the Committee members on the resolution of the questions presented. Moreover, neither the Disciplinary Rules, nor other rules, orders or decisions of the Vermont Supreme Court offer specific guidance on every issue. Therefore, we emphasize that this Opinion attempts to fill the gaps in the relevant authorities, offers useful
86-05 A lawyer who represents the custodian of children in a custody dispute may continue such representation even though the custodian has left the state to deny visitation to the opposing party in violation of the court order.
86-01 A defense attorney’s communication to a State’s attorney suggesting an arresting officer mistook symptoms of the defendant’s medical condition for symptoms of intoxication and requesting dismissal of the case violated no rules of conduct and cannot reasonably be construed to have been in tended to “merely harass or maliciously injury another.”