Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Would Vermont's ethics committee decide whether another law firm could hold client files over a fee dispute?

Short answer Opinion 86-04 declined to answer questions about a former firm's file release and fee demands because the conduct belonged to lawyers who had not requested advice. The committee limited its advisory role to the inquirer's own contemplated conduct.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1986
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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

Three lawyers left a firm and formed a new partnership. Some clients chose to move with them. The former firm allegedly required fee agreements before releasing files, and the departing lawyers asked whether its handling of files, retainers, and fee claims was proper.

The committee declined all four questions. It said the inquiry sought judgment about a different firm's past conduct, not advice on the requesting lawyers' own proposed acts. Because the committee heard only the inquirers' account and did no fact-finding, it would not adjudicate a dispute between firms. The opinion assigned adjudication of professional conduct to the Vermont Professional Conduct Board under Administrative Order No. 9.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion decide whether the old firm could withhold files?

A: No. The committee expressly declined to answer the file-release questions.

Q: Did it decide how the firms should divide fees?

A: No. It declined the fee questions for the same reason: the other firm's conduct was outside its advisory role.

Background and rules framework

The committee described its process as ex parte and limited to advisory opinions about a requesting lawyer's own contemplated conduct. It cited Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 9 in distinguishing its role from the Professional Conduct Board's adjudicative function.

Citations and references

Other authorities cited:

  • Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 9.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1986. 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