In re Phyllis McCoy Jacien, Esq., 186 A.3d 626

Phyllis McCoy‑Jacien was publicly reprimanded and placed on six months’ probation in July 2016 after a prior PRB decision found she failed to file Vermont income tax returns for 2011–2014 and ordered she file those returns (and her 2015 return).
Disciplinary Counsel, acting as probation monitor, made repeated attempts (email, certified mail, phone calls, family‑court contact) in 2017 to verify compliance; the Department of Taxes would not certify McCoy‑Jacien as in good standing.
Disciplinary Counsel filed a Petition of Misconduct in September 2017 alleging violation of A.O. 9, Rule 8(A)(6)(c) (probation violation) and V.R.Pr.C. 8.1(b) (failure to respond). The petition was personally served.
McCoy‑Jacien did not file an answer, did not participate in the proceedings, and did not contest the Motion to Deem Charges Admitted; the Panel therefore treated the charges as admitted.
After a sanctions hearing at which only Disciplinary Counsel presented evidence, the Panel concluded McCoy‑Jacien knowingly violated the probation order and Rule 8.1(b) and imposed a nine‑month suspension, with reinstatement conditions requiring proof of compliance with the prior PRB order and a detailed explanation for nonparticipation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did McCoy‑Jacien violate A.O. 9, Rule 8(A)(6)(c) by failing to comply with the prior PRB order to file Vermont tax returns?	Disciplinary Counsel: yes — she failed to file returns and thus violated probation.	McCoy‑Jacien did not respond or contest (default).	Charges deemed admitted; Panel found a continuing probation violation.
Did McCoy‑Jacien violate V.R.Pr.C. 8.1(b) by failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries?	Disciplinary Counsel: yes — repeated written and oral demands went unanswered.	No contested defense (default).	Found she knowingly failed to respond; multiple violations of Rule 8.1(b).
What sanction is appropriate for the admitted misconduct?	Disciplinary Counsel sought sanctions; Panel evaluated ABA Standards and prior cases, concluding suspension appropriate.	No argument presented in mitigation.	Nine‑month suspension; reinstatement conditioned on filing the required returns and explaining nonparticipation.
Is disbarment required for knowingly violating a prior disciplinary order?	Disciplinary Counsel emphasized seriousness but recommended suspension consistent with standards.	No defense offered.	Disbarment not warranted; graduated sanction principle supports suspension (section 8.2 of ABA Standards).

In re Obregon, 145 A.3d 226 (Vt. 2016) (panel decision accepting reprimand where mitigating factors existed; failure to file returns can warrant suspension)
In re Fink, 22 A.3d 461 (Vt. 2011) (discussing mental state distinctions and sanctions analysis)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lewis, 85 A.3d 865 (Md. Ct. App. 2014) (failure to respond to disciplinary communications violates Rule 8.1(b))
Mary Fletcher Hosp. v. City of Barre, 94 A.2d 226 (Vt. 1953) (presumption of receipt for properly addressed mail)
In re Davis, 889 P.2d 621 (Ariz. 1995) (endorsing graduated sanctions—reprimand to suspension for repeat misconduct)