[ back ]
If a Lawyer Commits a Crime and Forces His Wife to Confess to it
If a Lawyer Commits a Crime and Forces His Wife to Confess to it, Does He Keep His Law License?
Attorney Melvin Neisner, Jr., when driving to his office one night, found two motorcycles in the road ahead blocking his SUV from passing. When he was able to pass, and was ahead of the motorcycles, he slammed on his breaks, causing one of the bikes to crash into the rear of his car, and throw the operator into the road. Neisner sped off. One of the bikers got his license plate. He went to his office, turned around, and drove past the scene of the accident seeing cars and emergency vehicles. He went home where he drank several alcoholic drinks, and convinced his wife to lie, by telling any investigating officer that she was driving. The police arrived. The wife duly lied, and was arrested and taken to the police station for leaving the scene of an accident. About a month later, the state’s attorney, not being sure he had the right person, subpoenaed all Neisner’s family to testify about that night. Neisner then came forward and admitted he drove, forced his wife to lie, and was an alcoholic.
Neisner’s law license was suspended right away. He was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, giving false information to an officer, and impeding an officer. These actions are violations of a legal ethics rule that prohibits a lawyer from engaging in a serious crime which involves interference with the administration of justice. The Lawyer’s professional responsibility board suspended his license for a year, and ordered him to perform 500 hours of free legal work for indigent people. He appealed this punishment to the Vermont Supreme Court, claiming it was too severe.
The Supreme Court is the final authority on lawyer punishment. The Courts had to decide between disbarment, and some lesser penalty. It listed the aggravating factors as Neisner’s intentional dishonesty in lying to the police and forcing his wife to lie, committing a serious crime involving dishonesty, and injury to the public by violating standards of personal integrity on which the community relies. The mitigating factors were Neisner’s rehabilitation from alcoholism, and that this was his first offense, and that he had submitted testimony and letter from the community attesting to his good character and positive reputation in the community.
Instead of disbarring him, the Court suspended Neisner for two years, (coincidently rendering its decision at the end of the second year), and ordered him to do 200 hours of free legal work for indigent people to compensate the public for the harm he had done. The decision appears to be a moderate punishment for serious misconduct.
[ back ]
