In re Billewicz

ENTRY_ORDER.94-019; 161 Vt. 631; 641 A.2d 368

[Filed 17-Mar-1994]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-019

                             MARCH TERM, 1994


In re Lillian E. Billewicz, Esq.  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          Professional Conduct Board
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 92.24


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:


     Pursuant to the recommendation of the Professional Conduct Board filed
January 12, 1994, and approval thereof, it is hereby ordered that Lillian E.
Billewicz, Esq., be publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for one
year for the reasons set forth in the report of the Board attached hereto
for publication as part of the order of this Court.  A.O. 9, Rule 8E.

     The period of probation shall begin on April 4, 1994, and end on April
3, 1995.







                                   BY THE COURT:



                                   Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice


                                   Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice


[x]  Publish                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

[ ]  Do Not Publish
                                   James L. Morse, Associate Justice


                                   Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                STATE OF VERMONT

                            PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


               In re:      Lillian E. Billewicz, Esq. - Respondent
                          PCB File 92.24


                       FINAL REPORT TO THE SUPREME COURT

                                DECISION #   64

      This matter came before us by way of a-document entitled,  "Stipulation
 and Joint Recommendation", signed  by  Bar  Counsel,  Shelley  A.  Hill,  and
 Respondent, Lillian E. Billewicz, appearing pro se        In  this  document,
 Respondent and Bar  Counsel  stipulated  to  certain  findings  of  fact  and
 conclusions of law.  Also by this document, Respondent waived  her  procedural
 rights under Administrative Order 9,  including  the  right  to  contest  any
 sanction which the Board might impose or recommend to the Supreme Court.

       We hereby adopt as our own the findings of fact and conclusions of  law
 stipulated to by the parties.  By way of  summary,  we  note  that  less  than
 five months after being admitted to  the  Vermont  Bar  Respondent  undertook
 representation of plaintiffs in  a  complicated  personal  injury  case.  She
 filed one claim in court and intended to file two others.             Although
 Respondent knew that the Statute of Limitations on all of these claims  would
 toll in approximately nine months, she did not promptly or thoroughly  review
 the file or prepare the case.    Respondent did not become aware  of  critical
 problems of proof until two weeks before the Statute of Limitations  expired.
 Respondent did not file all of the claims on behalf of  her  client  in  time
 to preserve them.  Although Respondent's failings appear to have  more  to  do
 with her lack of experience than  a  lack  of  commitment,  she  nevertheless

 


 violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle  a  legal  matter  without
 adequate preparation) and DR 6-101(A)(3)( a lawyer shall not neglect a  legal
 matter entrusted to her).
       The area of critical concern to the  Board,  however,  is  Respondent's
 manner of withdrawing her representation nine  days  before  the  Statute  of
 Limitations tolled on the plaintiffs' claims.  Respondent  concluded,  rightly
 or wrongly, that her clients were attempting to perpetuate a fraud  and  that
 she could no longer represent them.  Although this may have been  the  correct
 ethical conclusion on her part, Respondent erred in  the  way  she  withdrew.
       Respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw, including a four page  Affidavit
 which needlessly detailed and disclosed numerous secrets and  confidences  of
 her clients.  This motion was filed in court and  became  a  public  document.
 Such an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information clearly  violated
 DR 4-101(B)(1), which even an inexperienced practitioner should  have  known.
       In imposing sanctions, we find numerous mitigating circumstances  here:
 Respondent was inexperienced in t  he practice of law,  cooperated  fully  with
 disciplinary proceedings, has no prior record, and is remorseful.           In
 aggravation, we note the potential injury to her clients.
       Respondent's state of mind was nothing more culpable  than  negligence.
 Applying Standards 4.23, 4.43, and 4.53 of the  ABA  Standards  for  Imposing
 Lawyer Discipline, we conclude that the proper  sanction  here  is  a  public
 reprimand.  See In re Thomas Pressly, Supreme Court Docket  No.  92-135  (June
 4, 1993)(disclosure of secrets of client warranted public reprimand).
       In addition, the Board believes that Respondent  should  be  placed  on
 probation for one year.   During this time, when Respondent  is  uncertain  or
 in doubt about matters involving ethical considerations,  she  shall  consult
 
 

 with an experienced member of the Bar before proceeding.
       Dated at Montpelier on January 7, 1994.
 
 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


 Deborah S. Banse, Chair
 Anne K. Batten
 Donald Marsh
 Joseph F. Cahill,    Esq.                   
 Karen Miller, Esq.
 Nancy Corsones, Esq.                          
 J. Garvan Murtha, Esq.
 Paul S. Ferber, Esq.      
 Robert F. O'Neill, Esq.
 Nancy Foster
 Ruth Stokes
 Rosalyn L. Hunneman                                
 Jane Woodruff, Esq.
 Robert P. Keiner, Esq.                        
 Edward Zuccaro, Esq.