Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Shawn T. Tao, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
Citation: 2022 VT 7Docket: 22-AP-015
Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; February 8, 2022; Vermont; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Shawn T. Tao, Esq., a licensed lawyer in Vermont, faced an immediate interim suspension of his law license following a petition filed by Disciplinary Counsel on January 21, 2022. Tao did not respond to the petition or attend a hearing on February 8, 2022. The Supreme Court determined that the requirements for suspension under Administrative Order 9, Rule 22 were met, citing Tao's lack of cooperation with investigations into three separate client complaints received in the prior six months. Despite initial cooperation, Tao ceased communication and failed to respond to multiple outreach attempts regarding a compliance exam for his client trust account. Disciplinary Counsel found that his IOLTA account had been closed since January 2021, and no alternative accounts were provided for holding client funds. Since December 3, 2021, Tao had not communicated with Disciplinary Counsel, leaving the status of his active clients unknown. The Court agreed with Disciplinary Counsel's assertion that Tao's actions constituted a violation of professional conduct rules and posed a substantial threat to the public, warranting suspension. Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) prohibits lawyers from failing to respond to lawful demands from disciplinary authorities, and the evidence indicated Tao knowingly failed to comply. Disciplinary Counsel has established that the respondent's conduct poses a significant risk to the public, primarily due to a lack of communication, which impedes the assessment of the respondent’s legal practice and client status. This failure to cooperate hinders the investigation into potential disabilities and public protection measures, warranting an immediate interim suspension of the respondent's law license. The document cites precedents where similar non-cooperation led to suspensions. William 'Trey' Martin, Esq. is appointed as trustee under Administrative Order 9, tasked with inventorying the respondent's files and protecting the interests of the respondent and clients. The respondent must cooperate with the trustee, responding to inquiries within two days and assisting in the inventory process. The trustee is granted extensive powers, including access to the respondent’s law practice premises, client property, files, electronic devices, and banking records, as well as control over IOLTA accounts and the authority to freeze accounts if necessary. An interim report on the trustee's findings is required within ninety days. The respondent's license is suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Notice requirements must be met by the respondent as outlined in the relevant administrative rules.