I have no idea what this means
By Andy Delaney
There were no cases last week, which means I did not skip last week. So shame on you for thinking I did.
But, there were two cases this week. One published entry order mid-week and one opinion Friday, February 11.
We’ll start with the memorandum opinion. I’ve said something similar to the following many times before. If one is facing discipline or dealing with character and fitness issues (and the issues are legitimate cause for concern), then the best approach is almost always to say: “One, I screwed up. Two, I’m really sorry and I take full responsibility. Three, here’s what I’ve done—or am doing—to ensure that something like this won’t happen again.” As the Mandalorian says: “This is the way.” In this context, clever legal arguments and excuses are rarely, if ever, effective. If you make a mistake, own it. There might very well be some pain, but it will be ten times worse when you try to avoid it or pretend it didn’t happen. This is my personal opinion and your mileage may vary.
Attorney Tao started off okay. He had three complaints from clients and—at first—cooperated with disciplinary counsel. But then, for whatever reason, he just stopped communicating. To be clear, this falls into the what-not-to-do bucket. The “ghosting” led to disciplinary counsel seeking immediate suspension of Attorney Tao’s license. SCOV agrees with the immediate suspension, notes that the behavior (not cooperating with disciplinary counsel at all) poses a threat of immediate harm to the public, and in its order appoints a trustee to take over respondent’s files and accounts in order to protect his clients. I’m not going to speculate that his license wouldn’t have gotten yanked if he’d cooperated, but if I were a betting man—and I am—I’d bet his odds of keeping his license would’ve been a heck of a lot better. In re Tao, 2022 VT 7 (mem.)
Our opinion this week is actually an amended opinion replacing SCOV’s original opinion from September 2021. It’s still an “Act 250 appeal that isn’t really an Act 250 appeal.” (That’s what I wrote last time.) SCOV again concludes that Act 250 jurisdiction isn’t invoked by a quarrying operation on less than an acre of land. And SCOV again affirms but in three pages less this time. I’m way too lazy this morning/early afternoon to play spot the differences, but if you’d like to play along at home, here’s a link to the original opinion. In re Snowstone, LLC, 2021 VT 72A.
x
Comments
Post a Comment