What duties did a Vermont public defender have to existing and new clients during an involuntary unpaid furlough?

Plain-English summary

Funding cuts had produced an involuntary, unpaid furlough for Vermont staff public defenders. The committee addressed whether a defender could be unavailable to existing clients without alternative representation and whether the defender had to be available for new appointments during the furlough. It limited its opinion to the individual full-time defender's duties, not the Defender General's overall obligations.

The committee said an unpaid furlough did not end the defender's responsibility to existing clients. The lawyer had to be personally reachable or arrange backup counsel or access through the Defender General so existing clients could receive advice and representation at critical criminal stages.

For potential new clients, the committee said the individual defender was not ethically required to accept appointments during an involuntary furlough when doing so would prevent competent service or adequate preparation. It recognized the state's obligation to provide counsel but did not transfer that entire institutional duty to one furloughed lawyer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a defender be unreachable to existing clients during furlough without arranging coverage?

A: No. The committee required reasonable availability personally or through backup counsel or the Defender General for critical stages.

Q: Did the committee require acceptance of new appointments during the unpaid furlough?

A: No. It said the decision belonged to the individual lawyer and turned on the ability to provide competent, adequately prepared service.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discussed former Vermont DR 2-110, DR 6-101, and DR 7-101, with EC 2-30 and EC 6-4. It also used ABA Standards for Criminal Justice as context while saying those standards did not independently have the force of the Vermont Code.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

• DR 2-110, DR 6-101(A)(2), and DR 7-101(A)(2), (3).

Model Rules cited:

• Model Rules 1.3 and 1.16.

Cases cited:

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Other authorities cited:

• ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services, Standards 5-4.3, 5-5.1, and 5-5.2.

See also

• Vermont Ethics Op. 00-03: Discharged appointed counsel
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 87-3: Declining appointed counsel

Source

• Landing page: VBA right-to-counsel opinions
• Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 93-01
• Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”