On Friday, October 7, 2022, the State of Vermont Professional Responsibility Board ruled on charges of attorney discipline against White River Junction attorney Robert C. Manby, Jr., Esq alleging misconduct. 

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Robert C. Manby, Jr., Esq.,” which was brought by Disciplinary Counsel with Case #2019-089.

The charges cited rules of professional conduct 1.14(a), 1.1, 1.4 (b): 1.14(a), which states:

When a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental disability impairment, or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

The rules of professional conduct can be found here.

The following are as alleged and summarized from the filing:

Respondent C. Robert Manby, Jr (hereinafter Respondent) represented 91-year-old EM in 2015 and 2016. His representation included preparing documents that disposed of many of her assets at the direction of her son. She was not legally competent during the period of her representation by the Respondent. 

Disciplinary Counsel alleges that Respondent violated three rules of professional conduct. One, by failing to maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with 91-year-old EM, who had diminished capacity; and by accepting EM’s son’s representations without consulting directly with EM. Count 2, by failing to provide competent representation in not meeting with EM privately to discuss her estate planning objectives. Count 3, by failing to adequately communicate with EM in having EM sign documents that affected her interest in her major assets without adequate explanation. 

The filing states:

‘Once at the church, Respondent got out of the back seat of the car and opened the passenger side door where EM was sitting. She was very elderly, not able to turn around and crane her neck, and was hard of hearing. Respondent “kind of knelt down and stooped to have direct eye contact with her.” He gave a brief explanation of what the deed did, told her she was conveying her home to herself and her son jointly and asked if that was her wish. EM responded “yes.” JM was still in the car sitting in the driver’s seat next to EM for most of the time, although at some point Respondent testified that he got out of the car and stood outside. Respondent does not recall discussing other estate planning options with EM outside of JJM’s presence. Respondent notarized EM’s signature after she again said “yes” when asked if it was her free act and deed. If EM said anything beyond “yes,” Respondent has no specific recollection of that. Respondent at trial thought that JJM might have been out of earshot at certain times when he exited the car but admits that in an earlier deposition, he had recalled that JJM was still sitting in the car when he spoke to his client EM. The Panel finds that JJM was sitting in the car during the majority of Respondent’s conversation with EM, and could hear it. ‘

The filing continues:

‘Disciplinary Counsel argues that, in accordance with the Comments section of this Ethical Rule, Respondent was required to use methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. That required a minimum meeting and giving EM privately an opportunity to consult. For estate planning attorneys, that would include determining what her estate plan wishes were and that the plan he was devising for her was her own and not that of her son, (something Respondent neglected to do entirely), and discussing with the client her long-term care considerations, particularly since she was 91, in frail physical health, and barely ambulatory.’

The filing further alleges:

‘Disciplinary Counsel argues, consistent with the Comments to this Rule, that the communication must be with the client and not a third party, and that “the client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objective of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so.

This Panel finds that there is substantial evidence of EM’s advanced dementia in 2015 and 2016, consistent with the findings of the Chittenden Probate Court, and the testifying experts. We find that Respondent failed to explain the documents he had his client sign so that she could make an informed decision. Had Respondent tried to determine whether EM understood what he was saying, he would have quickly known that she was not able to make life care decisions. This should have encouraged Respondent to explore other issues, such as long-term care options for EM, or the role that all three of her children might play in EM’s future care.’

With all the foregoing facts, the Board concluded with a suspension of the Respondent. 

The Disposition states: 

“We conclude that a five-month suspension is most appropriate on these facts. The suspension shall not take effect for thirty days from the date of this Order, to allow Respondent to appeal should he be so advised, or alternatively, to allow him to arrange his affairs at his solo law practice.”

Respondent attended Vermont Law School, graduating in 1979. Manby practices in White River Junction, Vermont. His info can be found on Linkedin.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.