In re Goodrich
Annotate this CaseIn re Goodrich (96-034); 164 Vt 638; 674 A.2d 415 [Filed 12-Feb-1996] ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-034 JANUARY TERM, 1996 In Re Julian R. Goodrich, Esq. } Original Jurisdiction } } } FROM } Professional Conduct Board } } DOCKET NO. 96.17 In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: The resignation of Attorney Julian R. Goodrich from the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court is accepted subject to the terms and conditions of A.O. 9, Rule 16. It is hereby ordered that Julian R. Goodrich is disbarred from the office of attorney and counsellor at law. Julian R. Goodrich is reminded that he must comply with A.O. 9, Rule 21. BY THE COURT: _______________________________________ Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice _______________________________________ Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice _______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice _______________________________________ James L. Morse, Associate Justice _______________________________________ Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD (802) 828-3204 Wendy S. Collins, General Counsel 109 State. St. c/o Pavilion Office Building Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0703 TO: Supreme Court of the United States United States District Court of Vermont National Discipline Data Bank Center for Professional Responsibility FROM: Wendy S. Collins, General Counsel RE: Julian R. Goodrich, Esq. PCB Docket No. 96.17 Supreme Court Docket No. 96-034 DATE: February 21, 1996 On February 12, 1996, the Vermont Supreme Court disbarred Julian Goodrich, Esq. from the office of attorney and counselor at law. This disbarment order was entered pursuant to Rule 16 of the Permanent Rules Governing Establishment of Professional Conduct Board and its Operatin, Administrative Order 9. Rule 16 allows attorneys who are the subject of disciplinary investigations to resign by delivering to the Court an affidavit detailing the following: 1) the resignation is freely given, 2) the attorney is aware of the existence of a pending disciplinary investigation, 3) the attorney is guilty of the allegations under investigation and 4) the attorney is resigning because he cannot successfully defend himself against the charges under investigation. Enclosed is a copy of the Supreme Court's entry order in this matter. Rule 16(D) allows publication of this order but precludes disclosure of the affidavit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.