In re Strouse, Esq.
34 A.3d 329
Vt.2011Background
- Respondent Margaret Strouse, admitted to Vermont bar in 2001, joined Burlington firm in 2006.
- Firm represented client in a divorce from the client’s husband; respondent began a romantic relationship with that husband in February 2008.
- Respondent learned of the firm’s representation of the client against the husband; she sought a conflict wall to continue the relationship.
- Senior attorney warned termination if the relationship continued; respondent claimed she ended the relationship, which the firm relied upon to continue representation.
- Nevertheless, respondent resumed contact with the husband, sent chocolates, and spent time with him and his children; she stayed overnight at the marital home with the husband on March 8, 2008.
- The firm terminated respondent; the Panel found deceit in violation of Rule 8.4(c) and suspended her for six months; the Vermont Court affirmed the finding but imposed a public reprimand instead of suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) through deceit | Strouse engaged in deceit by nondisclosure of renewed relationship. | Strouse contends there was no deceit and the conduct does not reflect on fitness to practice. | Yes; deceit established under Rule 8.4(c). |
| Whether a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2) existed requiring withdrawal or consent | Conflict arose because a firm member had a relationship with the opposing party’s spouse. | Consent could be contemplated but not properly sought; the conflict was serious and imputed to the firm. | Yes; significant risk to client representation and loyalty. |
| Appropriate sanction under ABA Standards and Vermont precedent | Disbarment or suspension warranted given deceit and impact. | Reprimand or lighter sanction appropriate due to mitigating factors and lack of direct harm to client. | Public reprimand appropriate; not disbarment or suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neisner, 2010 VT 102 (2010) (guides sanctions using ABA Standards 9.2 and 9.3)
- Warren, 167 Vt. 259, 704 A.2d 789 (1997) (public reprimand considered for deceptive conduct with little direct client injury)
- Hongisto, 2010 VT 51, 188 Vt. 553, 998 A.2d 1065 (2010) (pattern of misconduct; aggravating factors considered)
- Wenk, 165 Vt. 562, 678 A.2d 898 (1996) (escalating sanctions for repeated neglect and misrepresentation)
- Taylor, 171 Vt. 640, 768 A.2d 1273 (2000) (suspension for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; comparison case)
- Farrar, 2008 VT 31, 183 Vt. 592, 949 A.2d 438 (2008) (standard for sanctions and consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors)