In re Legus

• Decision Date: 22 May 2020
• Docket Number: SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 20-135
• Citation: 235 A.3d 517
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE Carrie J. LEGUS, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

235 A.3d 517

IN RE Carrie J. LEGUS, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 20-135

Supreme Court of Vermont.

MAY TERM, 2020

May 22, 2020

ENTRY ORDER

¶ 1. Respondent, Carrie J. Legus, is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the State of Vermont. On May 8, 2020, Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition seeking the immediate interim suspension of respondent's license for reasons set forth below. Respondent was given the opportunity to respond to the petition in writing and to appear at a hearing held by the Supreme Court on May 21, 2020. Respondent did not file a written response or appear at the hearing. Having reviewed the materials submitted by Disciplinary Counsel, we conclude that the requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 18(A) are satisfied and we immediately suspend respondent's license to practice law pending final disposition of a disciplinary or disability proceeding in accordance with Administrative Order 9, Rule 18(B). Respondent is directed to comply with the notice requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 23.

¶ 2. As set forth in the petition for immediate interim suspension, respondent was charged with reckless endangerment after allegedly pointing a loaded firearm at a store clerk. Respondent is representing herself in the criminal case and she has pleaded not guilty. Disciplinary Counsel notified respondent by email and U.S. mail that a disciplinary matter had been referred to her and opened based on the criminal charge. Several days later, Disciplinary Counsel left a voicemail for respondent. She identified herself and asked respondent to contact her as soon as possible. Disciplinary Counsel followed up with an email, flagged as highly important, reiterating this information. Several days later, Disciplinary Counsel again left a voicemail message for respondent and followed up with an email. She informed respondent that licensed attorneys were required to respond to inquiries from Disciplinary Counsel and that the failure to do so could result in the imposition of sanctions. Two days later, a call from respondent's number appeared on Disciplinary Counsel's phone. When Disciplinary Counsel picked up the call, the person either hung up or the call was dropped. Disciplinary Counsel immediately called back but no one picked up. She left a third voicemail message for respondent, again requesting that respondent contact her as soon as possible. As of May 21, 2020, the date of the hearing on the petition, respondent had not contacted Disciplinary Counsel.

¶ 3. Disciplinary Counsel argues that an immediate interim suspension is warranted because respondent has "committed a violation of the rules of professional responsibility as adopted by the Court" and she "presently poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public." A.O. 9, Rule 18(A). We agree.

¶ 4. Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) prohibits a lawyer, "in connection with a disciplinary matter," from "knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand for information from ... disciplinary authority." While this rule "is subject to the provisions of the [F]ifth [A]mendment of the United States Constitution and...