A panel has imposed sanctions on a state utility regulator who violated professional conduct standards in his practice as a private lawyer.
John Burke, a member on the quasi-judicial Public Service Board and a licensed lawyer in Castleton, was publicly reprimanded in September for failing to keep clients informed and for delaying the execution of a land deal, according to a decision by a panel under the Professional Responsibility Board.
Burke was also cited for failing to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a group of lawyers appointed by a Supreme Court administrator to enforce the professional conduct of attorneys.
He said his delayed responses in a land case were caused by a flood at his office, a surgery to improve his vision and his time away from the state to serve a two-year term as a member of a national association representing state public service commissioners in 2011.
The Vermont Supreme Court oversees the professional conduct of all lawyers practicing in Vermont. The court appoints seven members to the Professional Responsibility Board to carry out some of this responsibility. The board then appoints three members to a panel to hear complaints.
The panel was not persuaded by Burke’s explanation for the delays, lack of communication, and failure to cooperate, according to the ruling. Burke acknowledged his professional misconduct, the ruling states.
“They’ve got a job to do and they made their decision,” Burke said Tuesday in an interview.
He does not believe the punishment will affect his work as a Vermont utility regulator, he said. His term on the Public Service Board ends in 2015, and he has decided not to reapply for the job he has held for 15 years, he said. He said his decision to leave the board was not related to the complaint.
In April 2011, an attorney in Ohio wanted to transfer a Vermont property from a decedent to the person’s son. Later that year, Burke requested a $1,000 retainer and paperwork to carry out the task. On Nov. 29, the Ohio attorney sent the money and the paperwork.
The following year, the Ohio attorney asked several times for an update on the case, but received no response from Burke’s office, according to the decision. On May 23, 2013, she filed a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a board within the Vermont Supreme Court that reviews complaints about an attorney’s professional conduct.
The ODC also contacted Burke that day and asked for a response by July 19, but he did not respond. He responded to the complaint on Sept. 18.
He opened the estate 22 months after the woman sent the necessary documents and payments to perform the task.
For the remainder of the year, the ODC did not hear from Burke. The council notified him twice by certified mail that they would charge him for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process if he did not respond. On March 17, 2014, a petition of misconduct was filed. Burke did not reply to the petition.
The delays caused stress and anxiety for the client because she was delayed in putting the property on the market, but the panel does not know whether the delays caused monetary damages, according to the decision.
