Legal Opinion

In Re Bucknam

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 18, 1993No. 92-134PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

The Professional Conduct Board concluded that respondent-attorney Deborah Bucknam violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in dealing with a client and his wife over a six-month period in 1989. The Board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days and that she be placed on probation for a period of one year under the following conditions: that she successfully complete the multi-state professional responsibility exam, that she forego the collection of any expenses from complainants, and that she not be found to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Marsh, Day & Calhoun v. SolomonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  2. In Re WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1973
  3. Welts' CaseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993
  4. Academy of California Optometrists, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. In Re RosenfeldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re FarrarSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  2. In Re BlaisSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  3. In Re WarrenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997
  4. In re Glenn Robinson, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  5. In re HongistoSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API