Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

When did Vermont Rule 8.3 require a lawyer to report another lawyer's misconduct?

Short answer Opinion 2004-01 said a lawyer with knowledge of a rule violation raising a substantial question about another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness had to report it. The committee declined to decide whether the other lawyer's conduct in the request met that standard.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2004
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2004. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2004
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer described another lawyer's actions in a divorce case and asked whether those actions had to be reported. The committee said its rules permitted advice about the requesting lawyer's conduct, not an evaluation of a different lawyer who had not sought its advice. It therefore declined to judge the described actions.

The committee explained Vermont Rule 8.3(a): a lawyer who knows of another lawyer's rule violation that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness must inform the appropriate professional authority. It said the requesting lawyer had to assess the facts and report qualifying conduct to the Vermont Professional Responsibility Program. The opinion contrasted the former Code's broader reporting duty and quoted the Rule 8.3 notes that “substantial” referred to seriousness, not the amount of evidence.

In practice

The opinion left the specific divorce counsel's conduct unresolved. Its holding concerned the requesting lawyer's own Rule 8.3 assessment and the duty to report if the described threshold was met.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee decide whether the other lawyer committed misconduct?

A: No. It said doing so would intrude on the disciplinary authority's role and exceed the committee's mandate.

Q: Was every minor violation reportable under the rule discussed?

A: The committee said the later Rule 8.3 raised the threshold from the former Code: the violation had to raise a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Vermont Rule 8.3(a), contrasted former DR 1-103(a), and cited Committee Rule 4 limiting advisory requests to the inquiring member's own contemplated conduct.

Citations and references

Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 8.3(a).

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 1-103(a).

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinions 95-18 and 87-08.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2004. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace