At central issue in this divorce action (Case 3) are >$100K in costs from years of litigation related to a shipping container on Husband’s 3-generation family farm (Case 1) and a Developer who broke the farm’s water line (Case 2). Related ethics claims that the Bar’s Disciplinary Counsel was ordered to investigate and report on over two years ago (Jan. 2024) have still not resulted in any report.
Wife left Husband during the years-long pendency of the ethics claims and Cases 1 and 2 themselves, and she did so just days after learning from doctors they’d consulted that Husband likely could not have children with her. Wife texted her Sister-in-Law that she loved Husband while surreptitiously emptying their joint bank account and using other marital assets to move to (and possibly buy) an Alabama property she’d asked Husband to help her buy (and that her Vermont-based Aunt bought less than 2 months after Wife left). Wife falsely swore in her near-concurrent Complaint that they’d already been separated the required 6 months, and she fraudulently testified that she’d signed a Settlement Agreement (SA) to stop the Case 2 litigation costs she’d left Husband to continue to incur. But rather than help Husband settle, Wife hired separate counsel whose emails show withheld Wife’s signature in an effort to coerce Husband’s testimony in the divorce. (Exhibits S)
After learning of the signature-related fraud and insisting that Wife’s two attorneys disclose it to the divorce judge (“TJS”) as RPC 3.3 required, Husband’s Counsel provided them. TJS declared the fraud and 3.3 violations “irrelevant” to her despite that the Case 2 costs were central to the divorce. TJS also: (1) prevented cross-examination on Wife’s alleged signing and on other matters about which Wife had testified on direct; (2) required Husband alone to support his financial testimony with documents (while taking Wife’s testimony at face value despite Wife’s admission to perjury at least as to the date of separation); (3) prevented Husband’s mother from testifying though she’d twice traveled from out-of-State to do so; and (4) based her allocation of assets on statements that were not merely clearly erroneous (the standard set by Rule and case law) but had no basis at all (thus violating 3.1 as well as the clearly erroneous standard). Finally, TJS denied Counsel’s motion to withdraw post-trial unless the appeal deadline was allowed to expire without an appeal.
Given TJS’s many and clear errors, Husband nevertheless appealed, but the appeal record omits 10 of Husband’s admitted Exhibits (and this despite that it included all 14 of Wife’s Exhibits though none was admitted. Husband’s Notice of the record error remained unaddressed through the Dec. 2 deadline for his Opening Brief. Instead, a single Associate Justice (“AJW”) issued Dec. 4 and 30 Orders ignoring all of the issues raised in the Husband’s Notice and then, just days before Wife’s response to the Dec. 2 Brief was due, directed Husband to file a second Brief (still without use of the excluded Exhibits) and gave Wife a 30- to 60-day extension to respond to all of the arguments made Dec. 2. Husband’s second brief thus identified not only the due process failures by TJS but also AJW and noted that, under them Court’s A.O. 10, Canon 3.E.1, both judges must disqualify themselves.
For easy access to the omitted Exhibits and other documents in this case, links are provided below. Wife and her Counsel have also been given opportunity to have posted here any rebuttal or supplement they would like.
EXHIBITS:
Husband’s Exhibit List and Exhibits (all of which were admitted): A,*B,* C,* D,* E,* F, G,* H,* I,* J, K, L,* M, N, P, P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P- 15,* Q, Q-3, Q-6, S, T, V, X, Y (*asterisked Exhibits are those that were without explanation omitted from the record. See Dec. 4 & 11 pleadings, and see also Husband’s Opening Brief).
Wife’s Exhibit List (not one of Wife’s Exhibits was admitted by the Trial Court, yet, in contrast to Husband’s, all of them are in the appeal record).
TRANSCRIPTS (written): 2025-04-15, 2025-07-21, 2025-09-03
TRANSCRIPTS (audio): 2025-07-21, 2025-09-03
PLEADINGS (access to all (all pleadings and the full record to the Supreme Court) is available here)
2025-07-10 Wife’s Motion for Permission to Testify Remotely
2025-07-11 Husband’s Counsel’s Notice of Limited Appearance and Response to Wife’s July 10 Motion.
2025-07-22 TJS Order scheduling Day 2 of Evidentiary Hearing for Sept. 3 at 1pm
2025-09-03 TJS Order confirming Sept. 3 in-Court admission of all of Husband’s Exhibits
2025-09-04 Husband’s Counsel Motion to Withdraw (with emails showing Wife’s Counsel rejection of 7 requests to negotiate and ABA & VBA Guidelines on settlement & civility).
2025-09-10 TJS Decision (from which appeal was taken)
2025-09-11 TJS Order denying Sept. 4 Motion to Withdraw
2025-10-15 incorrect Court Transmission Report, stating that Husband had not paid appeal fee (corrected Oct. 30)
2025-10-23 incorrect Court Notice Stating that Appeal Volume Is Complete (later corrected, Oct. 30)
*2025-10-31 emails from Wife’s Case 2 Counsel showing Wife had still (almost 2 months after the close of evidence) not produced Wife’s SA signature page (this document is *asterisked because, having not been generated until after the close of evidence, it is not in evidence). The emails are shown here because they show the expanded harm from the Exhibit S-identified fraud and ethics violations).
2025-11-03 Associate Justice Waples’ Order rejecting idea of Amicus input absent Motion for same (despite that SCOV had sought such input sua sponte in 2014 VT 7, the only other RPC 3.1 case it has had).
2025-11-07 Associate Justice Waples Order denying Husband’s Nov. 4 Motion as to Costs (and directing that it be brought to TJS despite that: (1) TJS was already conflicted; and (2) such a filing risked “ripeness” arguments used by same Superior Court to avoid for years appellate review of dispositive legal issues in Riley).
2025-12-01 Husband’s (1) Notice that AV is Incomplete, & (2) Emergency Motion for Extension of Time (supplemented Dec. 1 & Dec. 2)
2025-12-02 Husband’s (original) Opening Brief (replaced Jan. 29, per AJW’s Dec. 30 Order).
2025-12-04 AJW Order on Dec. 1 Notice & Motion (ignoring Motion for Extension of Dec. 2 deadline; requiring Husband (but not Wife) to provide transcript citations to prove his Exhibits’ admission; and leaving unanswered why Wife’s Exhibits were in Record despite that none had been admitted, and whether Husband would nonetheless need to address Wife’s non-admitted Exhibits in Husband’s final Brief.
2025-12-11 Husband’s Reply to AJW’s Dec. 4 Order (identifying concerns raised by AJW Orders of Nov. 3 & 7 and Dec. 4, and asking that Court’s final Order re. the record completeness come from full Court v. single-Justice)
2025-12-30 Associate Justice Waples’ Order denying relief sought Dec. 1 and 11 (but with no explanation, including for her Dec. 4 Order as sought Dec. 11)
2026-01-29 Husband’s Revised Opening Brief (replacing Dec. 2 Brief per AJW’s 12-30 Order)
2026-02-26 Opposition to Wife’s last-minute motion for additional time (totaling 120 days) with virtually no reason given
2026-03-03 Wife’s Response (filed-and-stamped March 3 though calendar-dated March 2)
2026-03-06 Associate Justice Waples’ sua sponte Order declaring that Wife’s March 3 Brief timely met March 2 deadline
2026-03-19 Husband’s response to Clerk’s notice of Expedited Disposition as apparently inadvertent removal of opportunity for full Court review in accordance with VRAP Rule 33.2.
2026-03-23 Husband’s Reply to Wife’s 03-03 Response
*2026-03-23 (6pm) Wife’s Counsel’s email declining to speak w Bar Counsel and Husband’s Counsel re. additional statements requiring RPC 3.3 correction (*asterisked because not in record (as it was created after close of evidence and is not a pleading)
2026-03-26 Husband’s Reply Supplement (1-page) to apprise Court of Wife’s 03-23 (6pm) email; of the Public Portal’s backdating March 3 Response to March 2, and of AJW’s sua sponte (and without reference to VRAP 2 or other basis) declaring March 3 Response as having met March 2 deadline.
2026-04-07, SCOV Order denying motion that was never filed. AJW participated despite Jan. 29 Brief noting the mandate for her to self-recuse.
2026-04-07 SCOV Order striking from record Husband’s 2026-03-26 Reply Supplement
LAW
In re.S.C., Juvenile & In re D.S., Juvenile, 2014 VT 7 (VT 2014) (SCOV sua sponte requests Amicus input related to RPC 3.1)
In re. Riley, No. 23-CV-01451 (VT Super., July 31, 2024); other Riley pleadings available here. (Probate and Superior Court judges prevent (for years) appellate review of violation of Court Order concerning welfare of disabled Child to determine issue having no bearing on any of three dispositive questions of law on appeal).
2007-046, 2009 VT 115 (SCOV 2009) (Chief Justice Reiber and Associate Justice Dooley dissents from 3-2 majority ruling, where majority rules that two attorneys’ knowing false statements to prospective witness (that the attorneys were not recording their phone call to him) was not an RPC 8.4 misrepresentation).
087-2024 (VT Screening Counsel and PRB, Jan. 17 & 19, 2024) (PRB reversing Screening Counsel’s position that S.C. lacks “venue” to address complaints while matter is in litigation, and ordering investigation of complaint with report to complainant)
013-2025 (VT Screening Counsel, Aug. 27, 2024) (continuing to deny “venue” despite PRB’s Jan. 19, 2024 reversal and remand to the contrary)
VT Bar Counsel Blog (Oct. 3, 2024) (“A [Rule 8.3] report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as the court in which the violation occurred, is more appropriate in the circumstances.”) (emph. added)
A.O. 9, Para. 12 (re. confidentiality requirements for matters reported to Bar)
A.O. 10, Canon 3.E.1 (judge whose impartiality might reasonably be questioned must self-disqualify)
2025 Amendments to A.O. 9 Rules 2, 5, 6.C&D, and 12, hghltd
VT RPC 3.1
VT RPC 3.3
VT RPC 8.3 (and the related VT Judicial Conduct Rule 2.15)
CA RPC 8.3