In re Blais

In re Blais (2003-444)

[Filed 21-Oct-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-444
    
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2003


       In re Norman R. Blais, Esq.      }  Original Jurisdiction
                                        }
                                        }  FROM:
                                        }  Professional Responsibility Board
                                        }  
                                        }
                                        }  DOCKET NO. 2004.010



       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The Professional Responsibility Board's recommendation that petitioner
  be reinstated as a member of the bar is accepted.  The suspension is lifted
  as of the date of this order.  




       FOR THE COURT:



  _______________________________________
  Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

  _______________________________________
  John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice
   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 PRB

[01-Oct-2003]


                              STATE OF VERMONT
                      PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD



       In re:  Norman R. Blais, Esq.
               PRB File No.   2004.010

                           Decision No.        58

       Respondent filed a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to Rule 22(d)
  of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, following the expiration of
  two orders of Suspension from the practice of law.  The matter was heard on
  September 11, 2003, before Hearing Panel No. 5 of the Professional
  Responsibility Board consisting of Mark L. Sperry, Esq., Chair, Jane
  Woodruff, Esq. and Sara Gear Boyd.  Beth DeBernardi appeared as
  Disciplinary Counsel.  Respondent was present and appeared pro se. 

  Procedural History
   
       On February 14, 2002, a Hearing Panel of the Professional
  Responsibility Board heard three separate complaints and found that
  Respondent had neglected his clients' matters and made substantial
  misrepresentations to them in violation of  DR 1-101(A)3 and DR-1-102(4) of
  the Code of Professional Responsibility.(FN1) The Panel suspended
  Respondent from the practice of law for a period of  five months with
  probation of not less than eighteen months following his reinstatement to
  the practice of law. In re Norman R. Blais, PRB Decision No. 31, (February
  14, 2002).  Respondent appealed the matter to the Supreme Court.  While the
  matter was pending in the Supreme Court, Respondent appeared before Hearing
  Panel No. 6 of the Professional Responsibility Board on charges of neglect
  of a client's personal injury case  and failure to keep her informed about
  the status of her case in violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a) of the Vermont
  Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Panel found a violation and ordered
  that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
  months commencing January 20, 2003, with a period of probation of not less
  than one year following his reinstatement. In re Norman R. Blais, PRB
  Decision No. 48,  (December 20, 2002).

       On December 19,  2002, the Supreme Court adopted the Panel's
  recommendations and conclusion in PRB Decision No. 31, ordered Respondent
  to comply with Rule 23 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct and
  suspended him from the practice of law for a period of five months
  commencing January 17, 2003, with probation to follow in accordance with
  the Hearing Panel's decision.

       The period of Respondent' suspension has now expired and he is
  eligible for reinstatement upon satisfying the requirement of Rule 22(D)
  which requires him to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he
  has  

       the moral qualifications, competency, and learning
       required for admission to practice law in the state, and the
       resumption of the practice of law will be neither detrimental
       to the integrity and standing of the bar or the
       administration of justice nor subversive of the public
       interest and that the respondent-attorney had been
       rehabilitated.

  Facts

       Respondent called a number of witnesses on his behalf. Disciplinary
  Counsel called no witnesses and informed the Panel that she took a neutral
  stand on the Petition for Reinstatement, neither supporting it nor opposing
  it. Rule 23
   
       In addition to the requirements of Rule 22(D), the Panel was concerned
  about how Respondent had handled the mechanics of winding up his practice
  in accordance with Rule 23.  The vast majority of Respondent's cases were
  taken over by Karen Shingler, Esq., a fellow Burlington attorney who has
  known Respondent since 1984.  She was admitted to practice in 1983, and
  after a number of years as a prosecutor, she commenced a solo practice in
  1989. 

       Respondent began meeting with Attorney Shingler prior to the
  commencement of his suspension, and they arrived at an arrangement whereby
  she would enter an appearance in all of his court cases, handle all court
  appearances and sign all pleadings. Respondent continued to handle the
  client contact, drafted documents and did research. He continued to meet
  weekly with her so that both would be up-to-date on his cases.  

       Rule 23 requires that clients be notified of the suspension by mail. 
  Respondent did so, but he also talked personally with each of his clients,
  a task that he admitted was extremely difficult. The result of this
  personal contact was that all of Respondent's clients fully understood the
  facts of the situation, and all decided to stay with him under the
  arrangement with Attorney Shingler.

       In essence, during the period of his suspension, Respondent has been
  acting as a paralegal for Attorney Shingler in connection with his cases as
  well as doing research and writing on her cases and for other attorneys. 
  In addition, he has served as a Guardian ad Litem in three cases and has
  taught Criminal Law at Burlington College.

  Moral Qualifications
   
       Respondent's witnesses were confident about Respondent's moral
  qualifications. Susan Fowler, Chittenden County Probate Judge, testified
  that his character was fine and that she had never known him to be
  dishonest or unethical. Judge Fowler was admitted to practice in 1980.
  After four years working as a prosecutor, she entered into practice with
  Respondent first in partnership and later in an office sharing arrangement
  until she was elected Probate Judge in 1994.  Attorney Karen Shingler also
  testified to Respondent's good character.  Respondent testified that there
  are no legal malpractice cases pending against him at the present time.
  
  Competency

       Respondent's witnesses were unanimous in their opinion that Respondent
  is a fine lawyer.  Judge Fowler testified that he is "truly one of the best
  attorneys I know."  Attorney Shingler believes him to have great legal
  ability.  Alan Bruce, a Burlington attorney, admitted in 1950, who has been
  in solo practice since 1958, has known Respondent for twenty-five years. 
  He testified that Respondent is "one of the finest lawyers around here,"
  and  that he would be comfortable referring cases to him.

  Learning

       During the period of suspension Respondent has kept up with the law.
  He has completed all of his required CLE and every Friday reads the Vermont
  Supreme Court cases handed down in his areas of practice.

  Integrity of the Bar and Public Interest  

       There was no evidence presented that Respondent's return to practice
  would have any detrimental effect on either the bar, the administration of
  justice or the public.  To the contrary, the witnesses all testified that
  Respondent would be an asset to the bar and that his return to practice
  posed no dangers.

  Rehabilitation
   
       The question of whether Respondent has been fully rehabilitated was of
  the greatest concern to the Panel.  Specifically, the Panel needed to be
  assured that Respondent understands and recognizes what led to his
  violations of the Code,  that he has truly changed his ways, and that his
  attitude toward the practice of law has changed since January of 2002, the
  time of his hearing in PRB Decision No. 31.

       It was clear from Respondent's testimony and that of Judge Fowler that
  the root of Respondent's problem was his failure to effectively manage his
  case load.  He has always had difficulty saying no to clients seeking his
  help.  As a result, he took on too many cases, and some of them were
  neglected.  Judge Fowler testified about her unsuccessful attempts in the
  partnership to change the way Respondent operated.  She admitted that she
  had been unsuccessful, partly because the clients, having hired Respondent,
  were reluctant to receive services from another attorney in the office.
  Respondent also recognizes this pattern in his practice.  Often, as a
  result of his taking difficult or high profile cases, the smaller cases
  would be neglected.  This is born out by the facts of the earlier
  disciplinary proceedings.  The neglect for which Respondent was disciplined
  occurred not in the massive time-consuming cases but in cases which did not
  require a substantial investment or time or energy, cases which fell by the
  wayside in the press of the "big case" but which were of course still "big
  cases" to the clients involved. 

       Respondent testified that he knows that he no longer needs or wants to
  do the high profile cases.  He recognizes that it was those cases which got
  him into difficulty. He also sincerely believes that he must learn to
  effectively manage his case load, and that if there are further complaints
  he will no longer be able to practice.
   
       The Panel believes that Respondent has taken the first step toward
  rehabilitation.  He understands how he got here.  The next question is
  whether he has changed his ways.  Respondent admitted to the Panel that he
  knows how hard it is for him to say no, but that he has had eight months to
  think about it.  The entire process has been very painful for him, and the
  Panel believes that he is sincere in his commitment to doing what is
  necessary to insure that it never happens again.  Both Judge Fowler and
  Attorney Shingler testified that they had discussed Respondent's situation
  with him, that he understands what led to his discipline, and both believe
  that he is serious about changing the way he practices.

  Mentoring 
   
       The Panel was particularly impressed with Attorney Stephen Blodgett
  who testified for Respondent and has agreed to serve as the Mentor under
  the probation agreement. Attorney Blodgett was admitted to practice in 1970
  and has known Respondent since 1975.  He is familiar with the disciplinary
  system, having acted as one of four state wide Bar Counsel in the 1980's
  and occasionally as conflict Disciplinary Counsel since that time. 
  Attorney Blodgett had obviously given his role of mentor thoughtful
  consideration prior to the hearing.  He appreciates the seriousness of the
  task and is committed to mentoring Respondent and to doing it well.   It
  was clear that he had investigated the circumstances leading up to
  Respondent's suspension and given considerable thought to how he would
  organize the mentoring arrangement to both protect clients and to assist
  Respondent in altering his methods of practice.  Attorney Blodgett
  testified that his personal case load is similar to that of Respondent, and
  thus he has some sense of the number of cases that Respondent could
  reasonably handle.  He plans to begin with an inventory of Respondent's
  cases and to meet with him on a monthly basis to review the status of each
  case.  He intends to install a tickler system for case management and to
  set up a phone log system so that he can insure that client calls are
  returned in a timely fashion.  Respondent has no reservations about
  Attorney Blodgett as a mentor and is committed to working with him to
  revise his methods of practice.

       There is some confusion between the two cases in which Respondent was
  suspended.  PRB Decision No. 31 ordered an 18 month mentoring period.  PRB
  Decision No. 48 ordered a twelve month period.  At the hearing Respondent
  consented to an 18 month period in order to avoid confusion.  In addition
  the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the decision in PRB Decision
  No. 31 ordered that the probation be in accordance with the terms set out
  in the Panel's decision in that case.  For these reasons we adopt the 18
  month probation and the terms of probation set forth in PRB Decision No.
  31.

  Mental Attitude
   
       A final concern of the Panel is Respondent's attitude toward the
  practice of law.  At the hearing in PRB Decision No. 31, Respondent
  testified that the practice of law had changed and that he no longer
  enjoyed it.  Absent assurances that Respondent's attitude has changed and
  that he is sincere in his desire to return to practice, the Panel doubts
  whether rehabilitation would be possible or mentoring successful.  Based
  upon Respondent's testimony and that of all of his witnesses, the Panel
  believes that Respondent has changed his attitude to the practice of law
  since the time of that hearing.  He testified that his discussions with his
  clients prior to his suspension made him realize how much he missed it. 
  Attorney Shingler supported that opinion and the Panel finds that
  Respondent's present attitude toward practice is positive and that he  is
  sincere in his desire to resume his practice. Attorney Blodgett also
  believes that Respondent is eager to return to practice.  He believes that
  what happened was out of character and that the dissatisfaction expressed
  by Respondent was a momentary reaction to his then existing circumstances. 
  His sense is that what is needed is not so much to change Respondent but to
  bring him back to normal. 

  Expenses 

       Rule 22(F) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct provides that
  expenses in connection with a reinstatement petition may be assessed
  against the Respondent.  Disciplinary Counsel presented the Panel with an
  invoice for a deposition in the amount of $85.17.  The Panel has considered
  this matter and declines to make any order for repayment.

  Conclusion of Law

       The Panel finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has
  met the requirements of Rule 22(D) of the Vermont Rules of Professional
  Conduct.  We find that the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has the
  "moral qualifications, competency, and learning required for admission" 
  and that his return to practice will have no adverse effect on the bar, the
  administration of justice or the public.  We find that Respondent has been
  rehabilitated, that his attitude toward the practice of law has changed and
  that there is no reason why he should not be reinstated.
   
       In In re Lichtenberg,  PRB Decision No. 1 (December 3, 1999), approved
  by Supreme Court Entry Order, Docket No. 99-533, (January 5, 2000), the
  Panel considered the underlying causes of the suspension in connection with
  its determination of the attorney's rehabilitation.  In the present matter,
  it is clear that poor case management and inability to limit case load led
  to Respondent's suspension.  The Panel believes that Respondent appreciates
  the problems with his conduct, and that he is sincere in his efforts to
  change this behavior, and further, that the mentoring attorney is committed
  to assisting him.

       Similarly in In re Illuzzi, PCB Decision No. 128 (May 5, 1998)
  approved by Supreme Court Entry Order, Docket No. 98-191, (July 28, 1998),
  the Panel looked at Respondent's attitude toward the practice prior to his
  suspension and the changes that occurred in his attitude during the period
  of suspension.  Again it was the altering of the behavior  leading to
  discipline that persuaded the Panel and the Court to order reinstatement.

  Recommendation

       Based upon the foregoing the Panel recommends that Norman Blais be
  reinstated to practice law in the State of Vermont and that he comply with
  the Probation and Mentoring Program as set forth in PRB Decision No. 31.



  Dated  FILED OCTOBER 1, 2003            Hearing Panel No. 5

  /s/
  _____________________________
  Mark Sperry, Esq. 

  /s/
  ______________________________ 
  Jane Woodruff, Esq.

  /s/            
  _____________________________
  Sara Gear Boyd

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Footnotes

FN1.  Since this misconduct took place prior to September 1, 1999, it
  was governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, the predecessor to
  the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.  The provisions on neglect and
  misrepresentation are substantially similar in both rules.