Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Pope

Supreme Court of Vermont

June 9, 2017

In re Katherine Z. Pope, Esq.

         Original Jurisdiction Professional Responsibility Board PRB File No. 2017-008

          Hearing Panel No. 2: Jean Brewster Giddings, Esq., Chair Joseph F. Cook, Esq. Greg Worden

          ENTRY ORDER

         In the 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.

         PRB Decision No. 204

         Petitioner 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 Greg Worden.

         Petitioner 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.

         Petitioner testified and presented two witnesses at the hearing:

         1. 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;

         2. 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 and rehabilitation.

         Petitioner 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.

         The 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.

         Background

         Petitioner 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 offense ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.