Legal Opinion

In re Hongisto

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 3, 2010No. Nos. 08-202 & 09-196PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1. We granted review of two decisions from the Hearing Panel of the Professional Responsibility Board *554(PRB) concerning four complaints claiming violations of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which resulted in two concurrent six-month suspensions. We affirm the decisions of the Panel suspending respondent Eileen Hongisto from the practice of law for two six-month periods to run concurrently. Additionally, as a condition to her reinstatement, we require that, at the time that respondent applies for reinstatement, she must provide the Board with a detailed explanation for her lack of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re BerkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
  2. In Re FarrarSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  3. In re AndresSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  4. In Re BucknamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  5. In Re BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 1991

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Budding v. Iowa Department of Job ServiceCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1983
  2. In re Melvin FinkSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  3. In re Strouse, Esq.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  4. In re Joseph P. Palmisano, Esq.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2017
  5. In re Phyllis McCoy Jacien, Esq.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2018

3 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