 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Warren11/1/1995
ENTRY ORDER
In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Professional Conduct Board filed July 17, 1995, and approval thereof, it is hereby ordered that Mark E. Warren, Esq., be publicly reprimanded for the reasons set forth in the Board's Final Report attached hereto for publication as part of the order of this Court. A.O. 9, Rule 8E.
Furthermore, reactivation of Attorney Warren's license to practice law in Vermont shall be contingent on his having made restitution to his former client, Jesse Smith. For the first three years following return to active practice in Vermont, Attorney Warren shall be on probation subject to the conditions set forth in the last paragraph of the Board's Final Report.
Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice
Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
James L. Morse, Associate Justice
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
Publish
STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
FINAL REPORT TO THE SUPREME COURT
Decision No. 96
This matter was presented to us by way of stipulated facts, which we adopt as our own and incorporate herein as Exhibit 1. Respondent and bar counsel appeared before us on June 2, 1995 and presented argument in favor of a jointly recommended sanction of public reprimand. We agree with that recommendation.
Briefly summarized, the facts involve respondent's abuse of alcohol while representing clients in serious criminal matters.
Respondent joined the Vermont Bar in 1990. Until the autumn of 1993, he was a solo practitioner.
Between early June and late August of 1993, respondent appeared in Windham District Court on four different occasions under the influence of alcohol. On the third occasion, the presiding judge warned respondent not to appear in court again after consuming alcohol. Some six weeks later, respondent appeared at a sentencing to represent a client charged with a felony. Respondent was so impaired that he was asked to take an alco-sensor test. That test showed an alcohol level of .28%. The hearing had to be continued because respondent was too impaired to represent his client.
During this same summer, respondent was arrested and subsequently convicted of DWI. This was his fifth arrest for drunk driving since 1985.
In September of 1993, respondent closed his law practice and checked himself into a residential treatment center that same month. He subsequently moved to Boston and has no current plans to return to Vermont. Presently respondent is on inactive status.
Respondent currently provides pro bono legal services to individuals involved with an organization called STEP, Inc., an outpatient counseling program for alcoholics and drug addicts. He also provides pro bono legal services to individuals at the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans. He is an adjunct professor at Quincy College teaching criminal justice and paralegal courses.
Respondent has remained sober since October 1993.
By this conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(7)(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law), DR 6-101(A)(1)(handling a legal matter which the lawyer is not competent to handle), DR 6-1011(A)(3)(neglecting a legal matter entrusted).
In considering the appropriate sanction, we find the following mitigating factors present here:
* Respondent has no prior disciplinary record,<
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|