## Facts

- Thomas Pressly, a Vermont attorney, represented a client in relief-from-abuse proceedings and later in divorce and child-custody matters against her husband.
- The client reported the husband’s alcoholism and abuse and initially obtained temporary custody and supervised visitation.
- During divorce negotiations, the client reluctantly agreed to unsupervised visitation; she later continued to request supervised visitation based on continuing concerns.
- The client told Pressly she suspected the husband had sexually abused their nine-year-old daughter, explained the basis for her suspicion, and said she planned to arrange a medical examination to obtain evidence.
- The client expressly instructed Pressly not to discuss her suspicions or plans with the husband’s lawyer.
- In discussions with opposing counsel about why the client sought supervised visitation, Pressly disclosed the client’s suspicion of sexual abuse and her plan for a medical examination.
- After learning of the disclosure, the client discharged Pressly and filed a grievance.
- The Professional Conduct Board found Pressly knowingly revealed a client confidence or secret in violation of DR 4-101(B)(1) and recommended a public reprimand.

## Issues

1. Whether Pressly violated DR 4-101(B)(1) by knowingly revealing a client confidence or secret when he disclosed the client’s suspicions and planned evidentiary steps to opposing counsel.
2. Whether a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction, or whether a lesser sanction was warranted.
3. Whether alleged procedural and due-process defects in the disciplinary proceedings required reversal or modification of the Board’s decision.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Professional Conduct Board’s determination that the information disclosed was protected and that Pressly knowingly revealed it.
- The court imposed the recommended public reprimand.
- The court rejected Pressly’s procedural and due-process challenges, finding no prejudicial error.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not knowingly reveal a client’s confidence or secret without authorization under DR 4-101(B)(1).
- Client communications concerning sensitive allegations and planned litigation steps can qualify as protected confidences or secrets; an express instruction not to disclose strengthens the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
- Disciplinary fact-finding by the Professional Conduct Board is upheld on review unless clearly erroneous; credibility choices are generally not reweighed on appeal.
- Under ABA sanction standards and Vermont practice, a public reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer’s disclosure of client information causes or risks injury, particularly when the duty violated is central to the attorney-client relationship.
- Procedural objections in attorney discipline require a showing of actual prejudice; adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard satisfy due process.

## Conclusion

The court publicly reprimanded Pressly for knowingly disclosing highly sensitive client confidences to opposing counsel despite a direct instruction not to do so, and it upheld the disciplinary process and sanction as supported by the record and consistent with applicable standards.


In re Pressly, 160 Vt. 319, 628 A.2d 927 (Vt. 1993)