In Re MacEro

Supreme Court of Vermont

In Re MacEro

2011 VT 67, 24 A.3d 593, 190 Vt. 552, 2011 Vt. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 20, 2011

Docket11-152

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 VT 67 (In Re MacEro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re MacEro, 2011 VT 67, 24 A.3d 593, 190 Vt. 552, 2011 Vt. LEXIS 69 (Vt. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

¶ 1. In late April 2011, the Court received notice from disciplinary counsel that respondent, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Vermont, had been suspended from the practice of law in Massachusetts for a period of one year, the suspension to begin on May 8, 2011. Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 20.B, the Court issued an order notifying respondent of the suspension and offering respondent an opportunity to inform the Court, within 30 days of the order, why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to respond. Accordingly, pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 20.D, the Court finds the Massachusetts adjudication of misconduct to be conclusive, and warrants imposition of the identical discipline in Vermont.

¶ 2. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Vermont for a period of one year, commencing on May 8, 2011. Respondent shall comply with all of the requirements of A.O. 9, Rule 23.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¶ 1. In late April 2011, the Court received notice from disciplinary counsel that respondent, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Vermont, had been suspended from the practice of law in Massachusetts for a period of one year, the suspension to begin on May 8, 2011. Pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 20.B, the Court issued an order notifying respondent of the suspension and offering respondent an opportunity to inform the Court, within 30 days of the order, why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to respond. Accordingly, pursuant to A.O. 9, Rule 20.D, the Court finds the Massachusetts adjudication of misconduct to be conclusive, and warrants imposition of the identical discipline in Vermont.

¶ 2. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Vermont for a period of one year, commencing on May 8, 2011. Respondent shall comply with all of the requirements of A.O. 9, Rule 23.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 VT 67, 24 A.3d 593, 190 Vt. 552, 2011 Vt. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-macero-vt-2011.