In re Eva P. Vekos, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

CourtListener 9495234VtApr 19, 2024

Full text

ENTRY ORDER

2024 VT 22

SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 24-AP-070

MARCH TERM, 2024

In re Eva P. Vekos, Esq. } Original Jurisdiction
(Office of Disciplinary Counsel) }
} Professional Responsibility Board
}
}

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

¶ 1. Respondent was placed on interim suspension status on March 27, 2024, based on
her failure to cooperate with Disciplinary Counsel “in connection with a disciplinary matter.”
V.R.Pr.C. 8.1(b). See generally In re Vekos, 2024 VT 18, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __ (mem.). The
Court found that respondent “knowingly fail[ed] to respond to a lawful demand for information
from . . . [a] disciplinary authority” in violation of Rule 8.1(b), and that, due to her noncooperation,
she “presently pose[d] a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” A.O. 9, Rule 22(A); see
Vekos, 2024 VT 18, ¶¶ 11-15.

¶ 2. Respondent now moves for dissolution of the interim-suspension order under
Administrative Order 9, Rule 22(D). She asserts that she has cooperated with Disciplinary
Counsel’s requests for information and no longer presents a risk of harm to the public. Disciplinary
Counsel agrees that respondent has replied to his prior inquiries about the reasons, nature, and
causes of her now-concluded medical leave. Consequently, Disciplinary Counsel does not oppose
respondent’s request to dissolve the interim suspension.

¶ 3. We grant the respondent’s motion given her recent cooperation with Disciplinary
Counsel. As nothing remains pending in this Court, this matter is closed.

The motion for dissolution of respondent’s interim-suspension order is granted.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.