169 A.3d 1295
Vt.2017Background
- Applicant, a Wisconsin-licensed lawyer, applied for admission to the Vermont Bar in 2015; the Vermont Character and Fitness Committee declined to certify his good moral character and fitness and the Supreme Court affirmed.
- Record includes multiple contempt citations (2008–2011) across several Wisconsin criminal cases, and a stipulated public reprimand by the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation based on misconduct in two cases.
- Applicant contends his courtroom conduct was zealous advocacy on behalf of indigent/minority clients and attributes sanctions to judicial retaliation for whistleblowing; he also disclosed a 2011 municipal ordinance violation at the Milwaukee airport.
- A Washington Character and Fitness Board voted to admit him (8–1) after a full hearing, but the Washington Supreme Court later denied admission; Vermont Committee considered the Washington record at applicant’s request.
- The Vermont Committee and the Court focused on a pattern of disrespectful, insubordinate courtroom behavior and, crucially, the applicant’s ongoing failure to accept responsibility or show remediation.
Issues
| Issue | Applicant's Argument | Committee/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applicant possesses good moral character and fitness to be admitted to Vermont Bar | Applicant argued record does not show lack of present fitness; misconduct was zealous advocacy and/or the product of retaliation | Committee/Court argued repeated contempt citations and misconduct across different judges show a pattern likely to injure clients or obstruct justice; applicant has not shown remediation or acceptance of responsibility | Denied — applicant lacks requisite character and fitness; admission refused |
| Whether applicant’s failure-to-take-responsibility affects present fitness | Applicant claimed he had taken responsibility and framed some conduct as principled advocacy; contests characterization of events | Committee/Court found applicant repeatedly blames judges, minimizes sanctions, and shows insufficient remorse or remedial steps | Held that lack of genuine acceptance of responsibility supports denial |
| Whether Vermont must defer to Wisconsin/Washington proceedings or sanctions outcome | Applicant pointed to Washington Board’s favorable recommendation and argued unfair treatment in Wisconsin | Committee/Court considered those records but focused on underlying conduct, not outcomes; emphasized Court’s independent gatekeeping role | Held that Vermont may review underlying conduct and need not defer to other jurisdictions’ outcomes |
| Proper standard of review for Committee decisions on character and fitness | Applicant argued errors in Committee’s fact handling and relevance of certain items (employer suspension, TSA incident) | Court explained it conducts searching, non-deferential review due to its constitutional responsibility, though will give practical weight to Committee credibility findings | Held that Court applies plenary review but will consider Committee credibility; no reversible error in Committee’s findings here |
Key Cases Cited
- Monaghan, 126 Vt. 53 (court has ultimate responsibility to assess applicant character)
- In re Bitter, 185 Vt. 151 (repeated conduct can reveal a troubling pattern relevant to fitness)
- In re Morse, 98 Vt. 85 (Supreme Court’s plenary authority to regulate admission and practice of law)
- Gravel v. Gravel, 186 Vt. 250 (deference to factfinder’s credibility assessments in limited respects)