## Facts

- William J. Knight was admitted to the Vermont bar in February 1967 and worked as a salaried associate for attorney John B. Harrington beginning in July 1967.
- In March 1968, after roughly eight months of practice, Knight became involved in a plan devised by Harrington relating to a contemplated divorce matter.
- Harrington planned to entrap a prospective divorce opponent by arranging a meeting in New Hampshire with a young woman hired to create a compromising situation.
- The plan included secretly recording and photographing the encounter to generate evidence for use in the anticipated divorce litigation.
- The disciplinary findings determined that Knight was present when the plan was made, traveled to New Hampshire where it occurred, and participated in electronic eavesdropping and photographing the meeting.
- Harrington controlled the operation: he made the plans, directed Knight’s actions, and intimidated Knight to the point that Knight feared losing his job.
- The disciplinary presentment did not allege that Knight participated in, knew of, or was involved in any later attempt by Harrington to extort money from the victim; it alleged only that Knight participated in the entrapment/manufactured-evidence scheme and failed to withdraw when he knew or should have known of the plan.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney’s participation in a planned entrapment designed to create manufactured evidence for litigation constitutes professional misconduct warranting discipline.
2. If misconduct occurred, what sanction was appropriate given Knight’s subordinate role, limited experience, and lack of involvement or knowledge of any subsequent extortion attempt.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Knight’s participation in the entrapment and manufactured-evidence scheme constituted professional misconduct.
- The Court imposed a finite suspension from the practice of law rather than disbarment, citing mitigating circumstances and Knight’s lesser culpability than Harrington’s.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney participation in schemes intended to manufacture evidence for use in litigation is inconsistent with professional standards and supports disciplinary sanctions.
- A subordinate attorney remains personally responsible for professional misconduct and has a duty to refuse or withdraw from unethical conduct when the impropriety is, or should be, apparent.
- Disciplinary sanctions are calibrated to the attorney’s culpability and may consider mitigation such as limited experience, subordinate status, and coercive workplace pressures.
- In assessing sanction, the tribunal may distinguish an attorney’s participation in an improper scheme from separate, later wrongdoing by others when the charge and proof do not establish the attorney’s involvement in that later conduct.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court suspended Knight for participating in an entrapment operation that used clandestine recording and photographs to generate manufactured evidence for a contemplated divorce matter, holding that employment pressure and inexperience mitigated—but did not excuse—his responsibility to avoid unethical conduct.


In re Knight, 281 A.2d 46 (Vt. 1971)