In re Keitel
Docket: No. 00-290
Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; March 1, 2001; Vermont; State Supreme Court
A hearing panel of the Professional Responsibility Board issued a public reprimand to attorney Sheldon Keitel for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility due to inappropriate comments in his correspondence with the Washington Family Court and the Board. The case was reviewed by this Court under Rule 11E of Administrative Order 9, which invited briefs from the parties. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel contended that attorneys on inactive status are still subject to ethics rules, argued that Keitel violated specific provisions of the Code, and deemed a public reprimand appropriate. Keitel countered that the Court and Board lacked jurisdiction over inactive attorneys, claiming this infringed on his First Amendment rights. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over inactive attorneys but did not accept the hearing panel's conclusions regarding the alleged violations or the imposed sanction. However, the Court noted that Keitel's conduct could be relevant if he sought to reactivate his law license in Vermont. The case stemmed from a 1999 formal petition by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel concerning inappropriate remarks in a cover letter related to Keitel's appeal against a decision from the Washington Family Court, where he represented himself pro se. Although Keitel did not attend the sanctions hearing, he submitted further inappropriate comments. The Vermont Constitution grants the Supreme Court disciplinary authority over attorneys, and the rules established under Administrative Order 9 affirm the Board's jurisdiction over all attorneys, including those inactive, regarding actions prior to or following their status change. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel maintained that the record demonstrated a clear violation by Keitel, warranting a public reprimand. The Court independently determines attorney discipline while deferring to the Board’s findings. The primary purpose of sanctions is to protect the public and uphold confidence in the legal profession, rather than to punish. Although attorney discipline can serve multiple objectives, including deterrence and punishment for ethical violations, the Court has rejected the hearing panel's recommended sanction for the respondent. The respondent's behavior, which showed disrespect for the court, was noted, but several mitigating factors were considered: he represented himself in a divorce case, has no prior disciplinary history, and is not currently practicing law. Consequently, the Court concluded that further evaluation of the respondent's conduct by the Character and Fitness Committee will sufficiently address the purposes of sanctions when he seeks to reactivate his law license. The Court maintains broad authority in imposing sanctions and declined to agree with the hearing panel's conclusion that the respondent violated specific disciplinary rules regarding harassment and undignified conduct. The Court also did not address the respondent’s constitutional claim, emphasizing the need for applicants to demonstrate good moral character and consent to investigations to ensure compliance with professional standards.