While certainly not all attorney assertions must be right, all must have at least “a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” (3.1), and where attorneys repeatedly violate 3.1 or say things that are knowingly false, other lawyers are required to report them. (8.3). Yet VT’s BEAs have never enforced 8.3 or 3.1, even after a 2023 VT Bar Ass’n. Survey revealed that its lawyers violate 3.1 alone over 1,000 times a year (as witnessed by over 30% of the Bar).  Another 30% witnessed incivility and over 90% believe the increased lack of professionalism and civility “increases … costs” and “harms the public’s/clients’ confidence in the justice system.”

In addition to these public facts, VT BEAs have gone to so far privately in avoiding enforcement as to assert that:

-       3.1 cannot be enforced by BEAs while litigation is pending (even for years); and

-       8.3 does not apply to false statements of non-VT lawyers even when the statements are made in VT and cost Vermonters millions of dollars.

Until RTL informed Vermont’s Supreme Court of these private (and almost-certainly-3.1-violating) assertions — BEAs were were able to keep them secret even from the Court. That is because VT BEAs’ proceedings are not only done in secret but their decisions not to enforce are entirely unappealable.

Honor Code Broken. A draft article — Honor Code Broken — provides greater detail on what’s above and was given to VT’s BEAs on Dec. 16, 2024 with an invitation to identify any statements they believe are incorrect. With no comments received, a copy of the Article as provided to the BEAs is available here (and a later draft here). In February 2025, RTL asked the VT Bar Association (VBA) to publish the Article in its quarterly Journal (as were VBA’s own comments on the 2023 Survey), but has not yet received a positive response.

2019 NDA Inquiry. In 2019, VT’s BEAs were asked virtually the same Q as DC’s: “Whether Vermont’s ethics rules permit an attorney to use a non-disclosure agreement to prevent disclosure of attorney fraud or other ethics violations to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial financial harm to clients or others resulting from the violations.” VT, too, has refused to answer, even after being told that the NDA in question continues to cause >$100M in harm to others, including first-and-foremost persons of color.