In re Bailey

In re Bailey  (99-535); 170 Vt. 616; 750 A.2d 1024

[Filed 23-Feb-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-535

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2000


 In re Thomas Bailey, Esq.        }	Original Jurisdiction
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }	Professional Conduct Board
                                  }	
                                  }
                                  }	DOCKET NOS.	96.55, 97.08, 
                                  }			99.119 & 99.29



       Pursuant to the recommendation of the Professional Conduct Board filed
  December 6, 1999, and  approval thereof, it is hereby ordered that Thomas
  Bailey, Esq. be publicly reprimanded and  placed on probation for two years
  for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law section of the  Board's
  report attached hereto for publication as part of the order of this Court. 
  A.O. 9, Rule 8E. 

       The period of probation shall commence on March 1, 2000.



  BY THE COURT:


  _______________________________________
  Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

  _______________________________________
  John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  James L. Morse, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice


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


144.PCB

[3-Dec-1999]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                         PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


IN RE:	Thomas Bailey, Esq. - Respondent
        PCB Docket Nos. 96.55, 96.71, 97.08, 99.119 and 99.29

                             DECISION NO.   144

       The Board hereby adopts as its own the facts stipulated to by the
  parties in their  Stipulation of Facts signed September 27, 1999, and
  October 1, 1999.

       We adopt as our own the Joint Recommendation as to Conclusions of Law
  and  recommend that Respondent be publicly reprimanded and be placed on
  probation for two years,  as proposed in the parties joint recommendation.

       Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this     3rd      day of December, 1999.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


     /s/
____________________________ 
Robert P. Keiner, Esq. Chair


     /s/	                          /s/
___________________________	____________________________
Steven A. Adler, Esq.	        John Barbour 


     (ABSENT)	                 (ABSENT)
___________________________	____________________________
Charles Cummings, Esq.	        Paul S. Ferber, Esq.	

     /s/	                      /s/
___________________________	____________________________
Michael Filipiak	        Barry E. Griffith, Esq.


     /s/	                      /s/
___________________________	____________________________
Robert F. O'Neill, Esq.	        Alan S. Rome, Esq.



     (ABSENT)	                       /s/
___________________________	____________________________
Mark L. Sperry, Esq.	        Ruth Stokes 


     (ABSENT)	                       /s/
___________________________	____________________________
Joan Wing, Esq. 	        Jane Woodruff, Esq.


     /s/
___________________________	
Toby Young


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

                              STATE OF VERMONT
                         PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD

In Re:	PCB File No. 99.119, 99.29, 97.08, 96.71 and 96.55
        Thomas Bailey, Esq. - Respondent

                JOINT RECOMMENDATION AS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       NOW COME the Office of Bar Counsel and the Respondent, by and through
  the  undersigned, and join to recommend that the Professional Conduct Board
  reach the following  conclusions of law:

A.  PCB File No. 99.119

       1.  DR 1-102(A)(7) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
  that adversely reflects  on his fitness to practice law.

       2.  The Respondent's failure to file the divorce paperwork that his
  client had signed and  asked him to file adversely reflects on his fitness
  to practice law.

       3.  DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

       4.  By failing to file the divorce paperwork that his client had
  signed and asked him to file,  the Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by
  neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.

2. PCB File No. 99.29

       5.  DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

       6.  The Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional
  Responsibility  by failing to complete the closing statements and by
  failing to prepare and record a deed reflecting  that Kenneth Morgan and
  David Brewer had purchased the property at115 Winslow Lane in  Williston,
  Vermont.

       7.  The Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by taking ten months to
  make a final  accounting of the closing to pay Kenneth Morgan and David
  Brewer the amount that they were  due.

       8.  DR 1-102(A)(7) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
  that adversely reflects  on his fitness to practice law.

       9.  The Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(7) of the Code of Professional
  Responsibility  by failing to complete the closing statements and by
  failing to prepare and record a deed reflecting  that Kenneth Morgan and
  David Brewer were the record owners of a property that they  purchased in
  June of 1998.

       10.  The Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(7) by taking ten months to
  make a final  accounting of the closing and to pay Kenneth Morgan and David
  Brewer the amount that they  were due.

       11.  DR 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  promptly pay or deliver to a client any funds or
  properties in the lawyer's possession that the client  is entitled to
  receive.

       12.  The Respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of
  Professional Responsibility  by failing to promptly deliver the file to
  Attorney Bergeron on behalf of Mr. Morgan and by  failing to promptly pay
  to Mr. Morgan and Mr. Bergeron the money that they were due from the  real
  estate transaction.

       13.  Administrative Over 9, Rule 6D requires a lawyer to respond to
  requests from the  Office of Bar Counsel.

       14.  DR 1-102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
  administration of justice.

       15.  The Respondent violated A.O. 9, Rule 6D and DR 1-102(A)(5) by
  failing to respond  to the letter dated January 18, 1999, in which the
  Office of Bar Counsel asked him to answer Mr.  Morgan's complaint.

3. PCB File No. 97.08

       16.  DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. 17.  By
  missing court dates and failing to advise his client to appear as required,
  the  Respondent neglected his client's divorce case and, in so doing,
  violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 18.  Administrative Order 9, Rule 6D requires a
  lawyer to respond to requests from the  Office of Bar Counsel.

       19.  DR 1-102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
  administration of justice. 20.  The Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by
  taking nine months to respond to the  Office of Bar Counsel's repeated
  requests that he answer the complaint that he had neglected Ms.  Yetto's
  divorce.

D.  PCB File Nos. 96.55 and 96.71

       21.  DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

       22.  By taking nearly seven months to have his client's wife served,
  the Respondent  neglected the divorce case entrusted to him by a client
  and, in so doing, violated DR 6-101(A)(3).

       23.  DR 1-102(A)(7) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
  that adversely  reflects on his fitness to practice law.

       24.  By bouncing a check to the McHenry County Sheriff's Office and
  then taking seven  months to make good upon the check, the Respondent
  violated DR 1-102(A)(7) by engaging in  conduct adversely reflected on his
  fitness to practice law.

       25.  Administrative Order 9, Rule 6D requires a lawyer to respond to
  requests from the  Office of Bar Counsel

       26.  DR 1-102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
  that a lawyer shall  not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
  administration of justice.

       27.  The Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by failing to comply with
  the Office of Bar  Counsel's request that he produce financial records.

       Dated at Burlington, Vermont this    27th     day of September, 1999.

Jessica Porter 
Bar Counsel
/s/
_______________________
By:                                                    
Michael Kennedy
Deputy Bar Counsel

Dated at Burlington, Vermont this    1st    day of October, 1999.

_____________________                                                          
Thomas Bailey, Esq.
Respondent

Dated at Burlington, Vermont this    1st    day of October, 1999.

_________________________
Stephen S. Blodgett, Esq.
Blodgett, Watts & Volk, P.C.
72 Hungerford Terrace, PO Box 8
Burlington, Vermont 05402-0008
Attorney for the Respondent