In re Katherine Z. Pope, Esq.
Jurisdiction Professional Responsibility Board PRB File No.
Hearing Panel No. 2: Jean Brewster Giddings, Esq., Chair
Joseph F. Cook, Esq. Greg Worden
above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
1. After briefing, the Court adopts the hearing panel's
decision in its entirety as a final order of this Court and
orders that the decision be published in the Vermont Reports.
Petitioner is reinstated as of the date of this order.
Decision No. 204
filed a Motion for Reinstatement on July 21, 2016. The matter
was referred to this hearing panel by the Professional
Responsibility Board. Due to scheduling conflicts, petitioner
moved the hearing panel for a continuance of the scheduled
hearing on September 7, 2016. Upon review of available dates
for members of the hearing panel, the petitioner and counsel,
the only dates available for hearing lay beyond the 90 day
period set by rule for decision on the petition. (A.O. 9,
Rule 22(D)). Time limitations being directory and not
jurisdictional (A.O. 9, Rule 16(I)), the hearing panel deemed
the motion for continuance to be a waiver of the ninety-day
rule. (Entry order dated September 21, 2016). A hearing was
held on November 1, 2016. The hearing panel consisted of Jean
Brewster Giddings, Esq., Chair, Joseph F. Cook, Esq., and
was present with her counsel, Tavian M. Mayer, Esq. Special
Disciplinary Counsel Samantha Lednicky was also present.
Special Disciplinary Counsel took no position with respect to
petitioner's Motion for Reinstatement.
testified and presented two witnesses at the hearing:
Michael S. Livingston (Head of School at the Sharon Academy,
Sharon, Vermont, where petitioner has volunteered 2006 to
present) testified concerning petitioner's relationship
with the community and rehabilitation;
Ilerdon S. Mayer, Esq., (who has known petitioner since 2006,
provided a clerkship for petitioner when she was seeking
admission in Vermont, hired petitioner to work on special
projects prior to her suspension and hired petitioner to
assist with legal research in a limited capacity during her
suspension) testified as to petitioner's legal competence
presented written statements from five individuals in support
of her petition including her psychotherapist, her employer
(not law related), a former client, a family member and a
member of the Vermont bar who has known petitioner for a
number of years.
hearing panel finds that petitioner has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that she has met the requirements of A.O.
9, Rule 22(D) and recommends to the Supreme Court that she be
reinstated to the practice of law in Vermont.
was suspended from the practice of law for the period of two
years by the State of New York based on her conviction of the