While certainly not all attorney statements must be right, 3.1 mandates that all have at least “a good faith basis.” Where attorneys repeatedly violate 3.1 or say things that are knowingly false, 8.3 requires other attorneys to report. Yet VT has never enforced 8.3 and virtually never enforced 3.1.

These failures persist even after a VT Bar Association Survey revealed that >30% of its lawyers see Rule 3.1 violations every six months (totaling >1,000 such violations per year).  The same Survey showed that >90% of VT’s Bar believes the increased lack of professionalism and civility increases costs and harms the public’s confidence in the justice system.

In addition to the above already-public facts, VT BEAs have avoided enforcement by privately (and otherwise non-transparently) ruling that: (1) BEAs cannot enforce Rules while litigation is pending (even for years); (2) 3.1 does not apply to BEAs in enforcement proceedings; and (3) 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.

VT’s BEAs were until early 2025 able to keep these rulings secret even from VT’s Supreme Court because VT BEAs operate in secret and their decisions not to enforce are not appealable. A draft article, Honor Code Broken, discussing these and other BEA violations was provided in 2024 and 2025 to VT’s BEAs and Bar Association with invitations to identify any statements believed to be incorrect or unpublishable, and none was identified. VT’s VBA would not acknowledge even receiving the article as a submission for publication.

One VT Judge has attributed VT’s enforcement failures to its Bar’s small size: “‘The small nature of Vermont makes it harder…. It’s hard to slap sanctions on someone that you know more than someone that you don’t know, there’s just no two ways about it.’” (HCB at 2 & n.1) But that can’t be the problem, as VT’s Bar is now 8 times the size it was 40 years ago (when no such scandal was even suggested). More likely the problem arises from attorneys placing own position with “the club” above their oaths to uphold the law.

For real-world examples of how Vermont’s non-enforcement of Ethics Rules hurts its residents (including ongoing harm to a disabled and otherwise vulnerable child), see summaries of the still-pending Riley matter, and see also Spaulding. Finally, to see how the failures affect residents at the municipal level, see this example of “road politics” in the Town of Middlesex.