In re Charles E. Capriola, Jr.
No. 84-209
Supreme Court of Vermont
145 Vt. 245;
487 A.2d 144;
1984 Vt. LEXIS 585
December 14, 1984, Opinion filed
PRIOR HISTORY:
[***1]
Petition for readmission to the Bar of Vermont. Supreme Court, original jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION: The petitioner, upon the taking of the oath prescribed by 12 V.S.A. App. I,
Part II,
§ 12 (Supp. 1984), shall be admitted to practice in the courts of this state, in
accordance with the terms of this opinion.
HEADNOTES: 1. Attorney and Client--Reprimand, Suspension and
Disbarment--Reinstatement
While the supreme court is the
final arbiter of petitions for
reinstatement to the Bar of Vermont, findings and
recommendations of the
professional conduct board carry
great weight. 12 V.S.A. App. VIII, A.O. 9,
§ 17(d).
2. Attorney and Client--Reprimand, Suspension and
Disbarment--Reinstatement
Where review of factual investigation conducted by a
hearing panel of the
professional conduct board led the supreme court to
concluded that petitioner, who had been disbarred following his conviction of
the crime of
embezzlement, had met his burden of demonstrating by
clear and convincing evidence that he had the moral
qualifications,
competency, and
learning required for
admission to practice law, and that his
resumption of the
practice of law would be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor
subversive of
public interest, petitioner was
entitled to
reinstatement as a member of the Bar of Vermont. 12 V.S.A.
App. VIII, A.O. 9,
§ 17(d).
COUNSEL:
Putter
& Unger Associates, Montpelier,
V. Ellen Maloney, Pawlet, and
Robert E. Cummings, Jr., Bennington, for Petitioner.
William M. Dorsch, Brattleboro, Bar Counsel.
JUDGES: Allen, C.J., Hill, Underwood, Peck and Gibson, JJ.
OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM
OPINION:
[*246]
[**145] The petitioner seeks readmission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court after
disbarment, following his conviction of the crime of
embezzlement.
In re Capriola, 134 Vt. 548, 367 A.2d 689 (1976).
The petitioner is required to demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral
qualifications,
competency, and
learning required for
admission to practice law, and that his
resumption of the
practice of law will be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice nor
subversive of the
public interest. 12 V.S.A. App. VIII, A.O.
[***2] 9,
§ 17(d) (Supp. 1984).
After extensive investigation, and a hearing before a panel of the
Professional Conduct Board, the panel found that the petitioner had made the required demonstration
and the full Board unanimously concurred with its
recommendation of
reinstatement.
While this Court is the
final arbiter in such matters, the findings and
recommendations of the Board carry
great weight.
In re Harrington, 134 Vt. 549, 552, 367 A.2d 161, 163 (1976). Our review of the factual investigation conducted by the
hearing panel leads us to conclude that the petitioner has met his burden. Based on the
submitted record, we find that the petitioner is
entitled to
reinstatement as a member of the Bar of Vermont.
[*247] The Court accepts and adopts the
recommendation of the Board that petitioner be ordered to pay, within three years from the
date of this Order, all of the expenses incurred by the Board. The Board shall
certify to the petitioner the amount of said expenses within sixty days.
The petitioner, upon the taking of the oath prescribed by 12 V.S.A. App. I,
Part II,
§
12 (Supp. 1984), shall be admitted to practice in the courts of this state, in
accordance with
[***3]
the terms of this opinion.
