The Vermont Supreme Court has doubled the penalty for a Woodstock lawyer — suspending his law license for two years — ruling that his lack of remorse and failure to cooperate with an investigation into his misconduct had warranted the tougher sanction. 

The state’s highest court handed down its decision earlier this month, rejecting an appeal by Norman Watts from a ruling of the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board, which oversees lawyers in the state. 

That panel had issued a one-year suspension of Watts’ law license for several violations related to trust account practices, according to filings in the case.

Watts, whose office was based in Woodstock, argued several points in his appeal, including conflicts of interest involving the disciplinary counsel and the hearing panel considering the matter. He said a one-year suspension was too harsh. 

In its ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected his appeal, and instead lengthened Watts’ law license suspension to two years. 

“(Watt’s) attempts to minimize his actions and the harm caused to his clients is particularly concerning,” the court’s ruling stated. “On appeal, (Watts) continues to demonstrate no remorse for his actions or exhibit any recognition for the harm caused both to his clients and the legal profession in general.”

Watts said in an interview Wednesday he was disappointed with the decision and was exploring his legal options, including a possible federal court challenge to the ruling.

“In this case, there was no significant embezzlement or anything like that in terms of financial crimes and they just pretty much ignored that,” Watts said of the court’s decision. “I think that’s a fatal flaw.”

Justice Harold Eaton authored the ruling, which was also signed on by Chief Justice Paul Reiber and fellow Justices William Cohen and Nancy Waples. 

Justice Karen Carroll issued a dissenting opinion, calling for an even tougher penalty for Watts — disbarment.  

“(Watts) has demonstrated an unwillingness to conform his behavior to the rules,” Carroll wrote, adding, “(Watts) also engaged in deceitful and bad-faith conduct during disciplinary proceedings and there are significant aggravating factors present.”

Watts, who was admitted to the Vermont Bar in 1987, focused his practice on employment discrimination matters, according to filings in the case. 

Watts had received a public reprimand in 2019 from the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board resulting from his trust account practices, the ruling noted. After two trust account checks bounced in July 2020, an audit determined that Watts “continued to mismanage” the accounts, the ruling stated.

“He still did not track and maintain documentation of each trust-account transaction; maintain a ledger card for each client showing the trust-account activity and running balance; or reconcile the trust account at least monthly,” the decision stated. “(Watts) also continued to commingle his law firm operating funds with funds belonging to clients.”

Watts’ violations caused two of his clients “a great deal of stress” and the loss of their money for several months by failing to timely return their retainers, the court wrote.

In one of those instances, the ruling stated, the client paid more than four months interest on a loan that they would not have paid had the funds been promptly returned. The court found that the client was “negligently” overcharged in attorney’s fees and expenses.

Watts, in an interview Wednesday, said the high court ruling did not take into account any “mitigating factors” when considering the case. Watts talked about the legal work he did over the years in representing clients against “ruthless employers.”

He said the suspension is currently in effect and he has already transferred his clients to another attorney and formally withdrawn from each case.

“I fulfilled my obligation in that regard,” he said.  

The court’s decision to increase the penalty against a lawyer who challenged a Vermont Professional Responsibility Board decision is rare but not unprecedented.

The Rutland Herald reported on a case in 2020 involving a Rutland attorney, Sigismund Wysolmerski, who had his yearlong law suspension upgraded to disbarment following an appeal. 

In that case, according to the Rutland Herald report, the action was taken against Wysolmerski for “dishonest conduct” and “failing to keep his client informed.”