Thomas Melone, a lawyer and solar developer, is facing a professional misconduct probe and potential disciplinary actions before Vermont’s Professional Responsibility Program due to the alleged legal tactics he used in his attempts to gain approval for two solar projects in Bennington.
In a response last Thursday, Melone rejected the claims, and requested the Vermont Supreme Court cancel the misconduct complaint against him.
Melone has been locked in a legal battle spanning a dozen years to erect adjacent solar field projects on a forested 27-acre plot in Bennington. The solar plans have drawn the ire of residents in the area who have cited concerns with deforestation, noise pollution, increased wind, visual and aesthetic impacts and lack of compliance with the town plan.
President of Connecticut-based solar firm Allco Renewable Energy, Melone is known for a hawkish legal strategy, suing Vermont regulators, the town of Bennington, local citizens and even Gov. Phil Scott, according to Vermont Public.
Repeat denials by the Public Utility Commission for approval have not dissuaded Melone from his goal, as he has continued to bring forward the two solar projects with modified plans before the regulatory body since his first attempts in 2013.
Even after Melone gained approval for one of his projects, the Vermont Supreme Court sent the solar projects back to the commission for approval on appeal in 2019, siding with Bennington residents that both projects needed to comply with the town plan.
But, in June, the town of Bennington entered an agreement with the solar developer, agreeing to consider the location a “preferred site” for the two solar projects and direct the planning commission to consider rezoning the area, among other conditions.
This came after a suit Melone filed against the town jeopardized the funding timeline and viability of a major revitalization effort called the Bennington High Project.
The Bennington Select Board authorized the town to enter a contract with local developer Zak Hale under Hale Resources LLC, in January to transform the former Bennington High School building into community hub and affordable housing units. The project has also been a source of contention in town due residents’ and some select board members’ concerns with the grant funding model.
The alleged misconduct
In a Sept. 26 petition, White River Junction lawyer Michael Hanley levied eight counts against Melone for violations of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct. Hanley declined to comment on the ongoing matter last week.
In February, Melone appealed the town’s Bennington High School project contract decision to the Vermont Superior Court’s Environmental Division, but the challenge was dismissed due to lack of subject jurisdiction. Melone then appealed the dismissal to the Vermont Supreme Court, even though he “knew, or should have known” the Environmental Division did not hold jurisdiction on the matter, according to the petition.
The solar developer also filed a civil lawsuit against Bennington, asserting the Bennington High Project contract was “municipal waste,” according to the petition.
Knowing the Bennington High School Project was a priority for the town, Melone, and his son and lawyer Michael Melone, allegedly told town officials they would drop the suits if the town withdrew opposition to one of the solar project proposals before the Public Utility Commission, Hanley wrote.
In January, Melone allegedly also told the Public Utility Commission that five of the seven Bennington select board members were engaged in a “cover-up conspiracy,” forgery, counterfeiting, and had submitted false statements to the commission and state and federal government, according to the petition.
Melone reported to the Public Utility Commission that he planned to file a lawsuit against Bennington for violations of the Racketeer, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which he never executed, according to the petition. The developer also allegedly told the commission that town attorney Merrill Bent violated Vermont and New York professional conduct rules, but did not inform the Professional Responsibility Program of the allegation, according to the petition.
In March, Bent submitted another petition alleging Thomas Melone and Michael Melone violated Vermont’s professional misconduct code. The complaint was referred for potential “disciplinary actions,” the petition read.
According to the petition, Melone responded by telling the Professional Responsibility Program’s screening counsel that Bent’s allegations were meritless but “actionable offenses,” asserting falsely she could be liable for a defamation lawsuit. Melone also allegedly asserted without basis that Bent treated at least one employee improperly, but never filed a petition with the Professional Responsibility Program against Bent.
In April, Melone also allegedly emailed town officials and the select board, accusing the town of defamation, and denied Bent’s request to stop direct communication with her clients.
Bent declined to comment last week on behalf of the town or on the petition she filed in her individual professional capacity.
In 2024, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a Commission imposed $5,000 fine against Melone’s companies for violating a temporary restraining order that barred Melone from starting site cleanup at the proposed solar project location before a Certificate of Public Good could be awarded by the Public Utility Commission, according to the petition.
According to a Vermont Supreme Court ruling cited in the petition, Melone’s failure to observe the commission’s regulatory requirements damaged the “credibility and integrity of the process, resulting in harm to statutory scheme and potential harm to public safety and welfare, the environment and utility customers.”
Two opponents to the solar projects — identified as ML and DG in the suit — filed for bankruptcy, and Melone allegedly wrote to them in May stating he had found undeclared property in their bankruptcy documents.
In November 2024, Melone wrote that the only way to resolve “lingering issues” was for the ML and DG to write letters of support for the two solar projects to the Public Utility Commission and Bennington’s planning commission and select board, according to the petition.
After the duo did not send letters, Melone allegedly accused ML and DG of “defrauding the federal government” in comments to the Public Utility Commission.
In an March email to energy-related legislative committee members, the developer also accused Public Utility Commission Chair Ed McNamara of weaponizing the “single-plant rule” to the detriment of his application for a Certificate of Public Good for his solar project plans. The two abutting solar fields, if considered together, would exceed the commission’s regulations for a single plant.
The Commission ruled in June of this year that Melone had engaged in “ex parte communications” in his email communications with McNamara, but no sanctions were imposed.
In the petition, Hanley wrote that the incidents in which Melone allegedly violated professional conduct shows a “consistent pattern” of intentional misconduct.
Melone’s response
Melone has since filed a complaint on Thursday for extraordinary relief before the Vermont Supreme Court, asserting the professional misconduct petition against him is “fatally flawed.”
Melone’s complaint comes past the typical timeframe for a response, but his request to extend the response deadline to Oct. 27 was accepted by the Vermont Professional Responsibility Program hearing panel on Oct. 9
Melone wrote Hanley was invalidly appointed to the role of disciplinary counsel and extensive allegations were all meritless and are not within the jurisdiction of the Professional Responsibility Board to litigate.
According to Melone’s complaint, Bent asserted that Melone’s “behavior is not normal” in her original filing with the Vermont Professional Responsibility Program. In response, Melone wrote in his complaint that frequent litigation and criticism may not be “normal” for Vermont’s legal community, but his actions have sound legal backing.
Melone wrote the petition employed “shotgun or puzzle pleading lacking the clarity required by due process,” which is a legal tactic of extensively quoting defendants and piling on false or misleading arguments.
The ultimate aim of the professional misconduct petition was to target and “unlawfully chill the future exercise of his First Amendment rights,” Melone wrote.
Correction: An earlier version of this story gave an incorrect first name for Public Utility Commission Chair Ed McNamara. This story has also been updated to reflect Melone’s request for extension of the response deadline was accepted by the Professional Responsibility Program.
