Wysolmerski, In re, 96-597
| Decision Date | 25 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-597,96-597 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Sigismund WYSOLMERSKI, Esq. |
Before AMESTOY, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Respondent Sigismund Wysolmerski challenges the Professional Conduct Board's recommendation that he be suspended from legal practice for three years. He argues that this recommendation is unduly harsh and does not take several mitigating factors into account. We agree with the Board's recommendation and, accordingly, impose the three-year suspension.
Respondent does not dispute the conduct that led to these disciplinary proceedings. The Board found that between 1985 and 1993 respondent violated numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility while serving five clients. Among these violations, respondent acted without clients' approval and bound them to unauthorized settlements. See DR 7-101(A)(1), 1-102(A)(5) (). He misrepresented to other attorneys his authority to bind clients, and lied to clients about the status of their cases. See DR 1-102(A)(4) (). He knowingly made false statements to other attorneys and to courts. See DR 7-102(A)(5) (). He failed to keep in contact with clients and inform them of their legal obligations, failed to file a promised lawsuit, and failed to forward settlement offers and court papers. See DR 6-101(A)(3) (). Respondent otherwise did not fulfill his professional contracts with clients, as required by DR 7-101(A)(2), and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7).
Respondent concedes that suspension is appropriate, but maintains that the three-year suspension recommended by the Board is too severe given the mitigating circumstances of his case. He argues that the Board, in making its recommendation, did not give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, particularly the serious personal problems that beset respondent. One partner in respondent's law firm died of cancer in 1988. Another took time off and left respondent with much of the office's work. Meanwhile respondent's marriage ended in a painful divorce, and a close relative was accused of serious improprieties. Because he was helping his relative cope with these accusations, respondent could no longer approach him to discuss his own problems and so lost his only confidant.
We do not agree with respondent that the recommended three-year suspension is too severe. The Board recognized and considered the personal problems that beset respondent; it also noted such aggravating factors as the vulnerability of respondent's victims and the extent of his misconduct over six years in five unrelated instances. His neglect and active misconduct not only harmed several clients, but denied them their day in court. He was repeatedly dishonest with clients, other attorneys, and courts. Such behavior generally merits disbarment. ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct, ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standards 4.41(b), 5.11(b), 6.11; see In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524, 532, 602 A.2d 946, 950 (1991) (); see also In re Sullivan, 530 A.2d 1115, 1118 (Del.1987) (). Respondent avoids disbarment only because of the mitigating factors in his case. Cf. In re Willcher, 404 A.2d 185, 189 (D.C.1979) ().
Respondent also argues that the Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wysolmerski
...law as a result of multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct taking place over an eight-year period. See In re Wysolmerski, 167 Vt. 562, 702 A.2d 73 (1997) (mem.). These violations included making false statements to attorneys and to the courts, failing to keep in contact wit......
- In re Boardman
- IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING McMORMICK
-
In re Gadbois, 00-026.
...of Board decisions approved by this Court, usually as an alternative source of a finding of misconduct, see, e.g., In re Wysolmerski, 167 Vt. 562, 562, 702 A.2d 73, 74 (1997) (mem.) (attorney violated DR 1-102(A)(7) when he lied to clients about status of cases, failed to make filings, and ......