Knight, In re

• Decision Date: 28 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 20-70,20-70
• Citation: 129 Vt. 428,281 A.2d 46
• Parties: In re William J. KNIGHT.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 46

281 A.2d 46

129 Vt. 428

In re William J. KNIGHT.

No. 20-70.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 28, 1971.

Richard E. Davis, Barre, for plaintiff.

James M. Jeffords, Atty. Gen., and Louis P. Peck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The Attorney General has filed a presentment seeking disciplinary action against the respondent, an attorney. The respondent was an employee of John B. Harrington, a former attorney of this Court, who was convicted of extortion. See State of Vermont v. Harrington, 128 Vt. --, 260 A.2d 692, for factual situation. Harrington was later disbarred by this Court. In re Harrington, Vt., 266 A.2d 433.

The presentment filed by the Attorney General makes no claim that the respondent participated in the extortion attempt by Harrington, but charges him with participating in the planning and the execution of the plan to entrap a libelee in a proposed divorce action in a compromising situation with a young woman hired for the purpose of such entrapment.

This Court appointed a committee, pursuant to 4 V.S.A. § 844, to hear evidence from both the State and the respondent on the matters charged in the presentment, and that committee has made findings of fact for the consideration of this Court.

The findings clearly indicate that the respondent was present when the plans were made for the proposed entrapment, and that he journeyed to New Hampshire where the entrapment took place, and participated in both the electronic eavesdropping and the taking of photographs of the meeting between the possible libelee in the proposed divorce action and the young woman hired by Harrington to effect a compromising situation with the victim. However, the findings are also clear that Harrington, the employer of the respondent, made the actual plans, directed the actions of the respondent, and berated the respondent to such an extent that the respondent was fearful of losing his employment.

The respondent had been admitted to practice in Vermont in February, 1967. In July, 1967, he went to work for the Harrington firm as an employee, on a weekly salary basis. The events which led to this presentment occurred on or about March 6, 1968, at a time when the respondent had been engaged in the practice of law for about eight months.

The presentment by the Attorney General clearly states that the respondent was not responsible for initiating the plan or for formulating the strategy, for the plan of entrapment and manufactured evidence. Also, plainly set forth is that no claim is made that the respondent knew of, or was involved in, any subsequent attempt to extort money from the victim. What is charged is that the respondent did participate in the scheme and that he knew, or should have known of the plan in time to withdraw, and that he did not do so. Such charges...