In Re Neisner, 16 A.3d 587

Respondent Melvin B. Neisner, Jr. was convicted of four crimes, including impeding a public officer and providing false information to law enforcement, arising from leaving the scene of an accident and falsely telling police his wife caused it.
The Vermont Professional Responsibility Board Hearing Panel found a Rule 8.4(b) violation and imposed a one-year suspension with a minimum one-year probation requiring 500 hours of pro bono service.
Respondent appealed contending the sanction was too harsh, not aligned with prior cases, and that delayed panel decision violated due process.
The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the Rule 8.4(b) violation and ultimately imposed a two-year suspension effective January 9, 2009, with at least one year of probation and 200 hours of pro bono service after reinstatement.
The court granted credit for interim suspension time and clarified that the probation terms are part of the sanction, not merely reinstatement conditions.
The appeal involved consideration of ABA Standards and mitigating factors, including lack of prior discipline, cooperation, community service, and alcoholism recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sanction is appropriate given the misconduct	Board argued that substantial mitigating factors justify suspension rather than disbarment	Neisner urged a lighter sanction based on mitigating factors	Sanction reduced to two-year suspension with probation (200 pro bono hours)
Whether the sanction complies with ABA Standards	Standards support considering duty, intent, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors	Mitigating factors should significantly reduce punishment	Two-year suspension with probation appropriate given factors
Whether delayed panel decision violated due process	Delay has no stated consequence under rule; no prejudice shown	Delay violated due process and warrants reversal	No due process violation; no implied consequence from delay
Whether the Panel properly found Rule 8.4(b) violation	Convictions for impeding a public officer and false reporting establish violation	Respondent challenged the factual basis for the finding	Rule 8.4(b) violated based on intentional misrepresentation and felony conviction

In re Warren, 167 Vt. 259 (1997) ( ABA Standards guide sanctions in lawyer misconduct)
In re Andres, 2004 VT 71 (2004) (deference to Hearing Panel; sanctions theory alignment)
In re Berk, 157 Vt. 524 (1991) (aggravating/mitigating factors impact sanction level)
In re Mayer, 159 Vt. 621 (1992) (discusses harsh sanctions for criminal misconduct with mitigating factors)
In re Massucco, 159 Vt. 617 (1992) (sanctions for misconduct; multiple factors considered)
In re Taft, 159 Vt. 618 (1992) (sanctions for alcoholism-related misconduct)
In re Ruggiero, 2006 VT 39 (2006) (disbarment for felony-related misconduct involving client funds)
In re Sinnott, 2005 VT 109 (2005) (mem. case addressing discipline for lawyer misconduct)