Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In Re Prb Docket No. 2007-046
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided November 25, 2009No. 08-214 & 08-215Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Reiber, C.J.,
¶ 30. concurring in part and dissenting in part. While I concur with parts I and III of the majority opinion and agree that the attorneys violated Rule 4.1, that they should be sanctioned with a private admonition, and that we should establish a joint committee to consider amending the rules, I dissent from part II of the majority’s opinion. In my view, the attorneys also violated Rule 8.4(c) when they lied to a potential witness about *50whether they were recording a telephone conversation. In short, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that bold-faced lying is not…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Washington v. PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- Miano v. AC & R Advertising, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- In Re Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 697Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2006
- Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- The Mississippi Bar v. ATTORNEY STMississippi Supreme Court · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.