Vincent Illuzzi - Controversy

Controversy

In 1993, Illuzzi received an 18 month suspension of his law license for filing three complaints to the Judicial Conduct Board against Vermont Judge David Suntag. The complaints related to Judge Suntag's scheduling Essex County cases in other courtrooms.

The Vermont Supreme Court, over the years, has attempted to close some of the more rural courthouses. Essex County has always been on the list. In 1992, responding to appeals from Essex County assistant judges and litigants that Judge David Suntag was hearing Essex County family court cases as far away as Chelsea, over 100 miles (160 km) away, Senator Illuzzi inserted a provision in that year’s Capital Construction Bill that read included the sentence: "No Essex Family Court cases shall be heard at any other location, except Guildhall."

Judge Suntag subsequently scheduled cases elsewhere. Senator Illuzzi, on his Senate letterhead, then filed complaints against Suntag with the Judicial Conduct Board. The leading complaints related to Suntag's continued refusal to hold Family Court hearings in the Essex County at the court house in Guildhall. Senator Illuzzi was not involved in those cases as an attorney.

The Judicial Conduct Board of the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed the complaints against Suntag and filed a complaint against Illuzzi for filing them. Since Illuzzi was a lawyer, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over his law license.

The Professional Conduct Board, which is appointed by the Supreme Court, investigated the Court's complaint and recommended Attorney Illuzzi be disbarred for filing the complaint in his capacity as a state senator against Suntag. Judge Suntag's wife, the Bar Counsel, prosecuted Illuzzi. The charges were that Senator Illuzzi violated the Vermont Bar's Disciplinary Rule DR 8-101(A)(2) (lawyer who holds public office shall not use position to influence tribunal to act in favor of himself or client); DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); and DR 1 -102(A)(7)(lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). Illuzzi stipulated to an 18 month suspension with the expectation that his stipulations would mitigate the Supreme Court's complaint, but the Professional Conduct Board recommended disbarment.

Illuzzi appealed the Board’s recommendation to the Vermont Supreme Court and he asked that Justices Gibson, Dooley, Johnson and Morse recuse themselves because they filed the complaint and would be sitting in judgment of the resolution of the complaint, and other reasons. When Dooley, Johnson and Morse refused, he sued them in US District Court . The presiding federal district court judge held off on ruling on the case until Dooley, Johnson and Morse recused themselves (164 VT 623). A substitute Supreme Court then agreed to a negotiated 18-month suspension of his law license (165 VT 598). In ratifying the suspension, the Supreme Court noted that Illuzzi had been guilty of five prior disciplinary offenses.

As of February 9, 1998, Attorney Illuzzi had completed all requirements for reinstatement of his license to practice law, including successful completion of an ethics course and support from other lawyers and judges. However, the Court refused to sign the two sentence reinstatement order until July 28, 1998. Three days later, the state's largest newspaper, The Burlington Free Press, editorialized that Illuzzi was being unfairly treated by the Supreme Court. The editorial was titled "Disorder in the court: Vermont's Supreme Court behaved in far too political and personal a fashion in the case of state Sen. Vincent Illuzzi." The editorial criticized the Court for its handling of the case and commented: "The court restored Illuzzi's license to practice law this week, but that is no more remedy than a bank robber's returning the cash. Illuzzi, who never deserved to lose his license in the first place, should have had it back six months ago."

No action was ever brought against Judge Suntag for violating the specific requirement of Act 256 of 1992. However, the General Assembly came close to not reelecting Suntag for another six year term of office. Vermont judges are reelected by the General Assembly every six years.

Illuzzi was profiled in a Boston Globe article by Jon Margolis shortly after he was reinstated to practice.