1924.59
This is the first documented repri- mand against a lawyer by the VBA. The 1925 Committee reported that a pe- tition for disbarment was pending against Charles Batchelder, a former Bethel attor- ney. He had left the state and his where- abouts was unknown. The evidence ob- tained by the Committee revealed several embezzlements from clients.
We believe the arm of the state should be stretched to the utmost limit to find this man; and that, when found, he should be placed upon trial for embez- zlement which he is accused of. What- ever the final outcome of these accu- sations might be, it is demoralizing to the profession to permit an attorney of this State to act as Charles Batchelder has, and get away with it.60
As a further incentive toward good be-
havior, and in the spirit of its role as educa- tor-enforcer of lawyer conduct, the Com- mittee recommended that “a short code of ethics in parchment form, suitable for framing be prepared by the Association, and delivered to all attorneys in the State and thereafter to each successful applicant for admission to the Bar.”61 There is no re- ported disbarment of Batchelder in the Vermont Reports, but the parchment wall- hanging has continued to be made avail- able to new attorneys since that time. Of course, the single page cannot substitute for a full set of rules of conduct. The 1927 Committee reported that it had found no reason to disbar a member or refer his name to the Attorney Gener- al who was guilty of failing to pay taxes on theater admissions, because that crime was only a misdemeanor under federal law, and passed on another member’s convic- tion for selling intoxicating liquor on the ground that such an offense did not involve moral turpitude.62
A private reprimand fol-
lowed the discovery of a collection letter threatening publicity unless payment was made. In all, however, the Committee was pleased with what it found. “The Commit- tee congratulated the Bar of Vermont upon its high standard of Professional Ethics.”63 In 1929, the Committee reported having sent a “severe reprimand” to an attorney who had taken money from two collection agencies and failed to file any writ to put the claims into judgment, on account of his great carelessness and regret.64 At the 1931 annual meeting, the Com-
mittee explained that it did not recom- mend adoption of the ABA Canon of Le- gal Ethics, finding the 1909 Vermont Code sufficient, and the differences between the VBA and ABA versions “trite and ob- vious.”65
One referral for disbarment was made to the attorney general by the Com- mittee that year, but the report gives no
www.vtbar.org
details.
For failing to collect and pay over clients’ funds, the Committee referred a complaint for disbarment against Alfred P. Killeen, a Bellows Falls attorney in 1935.66
Killeen’s
name does not appear in any reported dis- barment by the Supreme Court. That year the Committee also “felt called upon” to criticize an attorney for “lack of diligence rather than by unprofessional conduct,” but his name is not reported.67 The business of reviewing complaints in-
creased over time. In 1938, the Commit- tee reported receiving twenty-five differ- ent complaints involving nineteen attor- neys, largely dealing with failures to “prop- erly account for money collected,” treated as the result of a “tendency to procrastina- tion,” acts committed largely with “good intentions.” Rather than referring the case, the Committee felt compelled to remind the bar of their duties in this respect.68
The
Committee reported receiving an opinion from the ABA Committee on Unauthorized Practice, as help in deciding how to handle a complaint against a lawyer for running a collection agency, and decided he was guilty of unprofessional conduct for solic- iting business under a trade name. Deane C. Davis was the chairman of the Commit- tee that year, and finished by stating, “If by any strange mischance the next Presi- dent of this Association should be tempt- ed to reappoint the members of this com- mittee, we most respectfully and forcefully suggest that the honors of this kind should be passed around.”69
Davis was reappoint-
ed chair of the Committee for several years following, until he was elected VBA Presi- dent in 1943. In 1939, the Committee was busy with eight complaints, three of them “of suffi- cient gravity” to justify further action. They held hearings in Montpelier. One involved an attorney who had represented a respon- dent charged with adultery and then nev- er mentioned her admission of guilt in his defense of her divorce action, where she claimed she had not violated the marriage vows. The lawyer never revealed the de- ceit to the Court.70
In another, the attor-
ney had invested in the property that was the subject of a lawsuit, and by that action deprived his client from getting the mon- ey he should have received. The last in- volved withholding of money and failure to account, the second of two similar com- plaints against the same attorney in sever- al months. The Committee filed charges in only the first matter with the attorney gen- eral.71
The Committee also issued its opinion in
1939 that full time state’s attorneys should not take private cases, given the possibility of a conflict.72
It censured an attorney for
unreported misconduct in 1943, described merely as “the manner in which he dealt
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2013 13
Ruminations: The Great Falls
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40