177 A.3d 1105
Vt.2017Background
- Vermont disciplinary counsel notified the Court of a reciprocal discipline proceeding after Arizona suspended attorney Joseph P. Palmisano for six months (starting Aug. 1, 2017) with two years probation upon reinstatement, following admitted violations in multiple matters.
- Arizona findings: Palmisano, owner/managing attorney of Acacia Law Group, repeatedly failed to communicate with clients, missed appearances, filed nothing for clients, misapplied prepaid fees, misrepresented facts to courts, revealed client information, and handled conflicts of interest. Seven counts with multiple clients and events were admitted. No mitigating factors; multiple aggravators including prior discipline and pattern of misconduct.
- Arizona accepted a consent discipline: six-month suspension and two-year probation with requirements (LOMAP, Member Assistance Program, etc.). Arizona judge rejected that mismanagement alone excused conduct, finding respondent would not, rather than could not, manage his practice.
- Vermont solicited objections to imposing identical discipline; Palmisano did not oppose identical discipline but Vermont Disciplinary Counsel urged a longer suspension (2.5 years argued) and asked that Vermont reinstatement be conditioned on Arizona reinstatement.
- Vermont placed Palmisano on interim suspension July 25, 2017 and, after review of the Arizona record and ABA Standards, concluded that a two-year suspension in Vermont (effective July 25, 2017) was appropriate; reinstatement in Vermont requires prior reinstatement in Arizona and compliance with Arizona probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vermont should impose identical reciprocal discipline | Disciplinary Counsel: Arizona six-month suspension is insufficient; Vermont should impose longer (2.5 years) given severity, pattern, and difficulty supervising probation in AZ | Palmisano: did not oppose identical discipline; agreed six-month suspension + two years probation adequate; opposed conditioning Vermont reinstatement on Arizona reinstatement | Court departed from identical discipline: imposed two-year suspension in Vermont, effective July 25, 2017 |
| Whether the Arizona record supports lesser mitigation or different factual findings | Disciplinary Counsel: Vermont may consider that supervision of probation in AZ is problematic and aggravating factors warrant harsher sanction | Palmisano: Arizona record and consent sanction sufficient; no objection to reciprocal discipline | Court limited to face of Arizona record, found no mitigation and substantial aggravation; increased suspension length accordingly |
| Appropriate length of suspension under ABA Standards | Disciplinary Counsel: multiple counts, pattern, prior discipline justify suspension greater than six months | Palmisano: six-month suspension with probation meets objectives; consent sanction acceptable | Court applied ABA Standards, found knowing conduct and multiple aggravators; two-year suspension appropriate |
| Conditions for Vermont reinstatement | Disciplinary Counsel requested Vermont reinstatement to wait until Arizona reinstatement | Palmisano opposed conditioning reinstatement on Arizona reinstatement but agreed not to seek VT reinstatement until AZ granted authority to practice | Court required that Vermont reinstatement is contingent on prior reinstatement in Arizona and compliance with Arizona probation; must follow A.O. 9, Rule 22(D) procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Warren, 167 Vt. 259, 704 A.2d 789 (1997) (uses ABA Standards as guidance for sanctions)
- In re Hongisto, 188 Vt. 553, 998 A.2d 1065 (2010) (mem.) (six-month suspensions upheld in less extensive misconduct)
- In re McCarty, 194 Vt. 109, 75 A.3d 589 (2013) (three-month suspension where mitigating factors present despite severe misconduct)
- In re O’Meara, 193 Vt. 671, 67 A.3d 280 (2013) (mem.) (reciprocal disbarment where false testimony and client disloyalty occurred)
- In re Neisner, 189 Vt. 145, 16 A.3d 587 (2010) (two-year suspension and probation appropriate for serious intentional interference with justice)