Here comes vtBuzz, the Burlington Free Press’ politics blog, to (rightfully) claim credit for first reporting the Illuzzi-for-AG rumor back on 2/27. And advancing the story by accumulating all the recent rumors elsewhere.

And, again, not mentioning Illuzzi’s ethical troubles. Like, for instance, getting his law license suspended and almost losing it permanently.

Since vtBuzz didn’t mention Illuzzi’s past in its 2/27 post either (I hadn’t started my count yet, and forgot to include it when I did), they get two points in our ongoing Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash count. As with the other four mentions of a possible Illuzzi candidacy in Vermont media, the vtBuzz postings were brief. However, you’d think that “almost losing his law license” might be among the first things mentioned if you were reporting on a potential candidate for Attorney General.

After the jump: some ugly facts from the official record.  

Here’s one juicy tidbit from Illuzzi’s decidedly checkered legal career: A reading from Vermont Supreme Court Docket 95-346, in re Vincent Illuzzi.

Respondent and bar counsel stipulated to the following facts and conclusions.  Respondent was admitted to practice law in Vermont in 1979. He is a state senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In 1993, respondent was the subject of professional conduct proceedings that resulted in his suspension from the practice of law.  Respondent has been under suspension since September 1, 1993.  

Okay, got that? It’s 1995, and Illuzzi has been under suspension since 1993.

Until February 1993, respondent had never filed a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.  He then filed three complaints on Senate letterhead against Judge Suntag, during the professional conduct proceedings that resulted in the current suspension. Those proceedings were prosecuted by Judge Suntag’s wife, Wendy Collins, who was bar counsel at that time.  Respondent filed the three complaints with reckless disregard of obvious facts and basic legal principles because he was angry with Attorney Collins and dislikes Judge Suntag.

In case the legalese needs untangling: Attorney Wendy Collins was counsel for the State Bar Association in the probe of Illuzzi’s unethical doings. Her husband was Judge David Suntag. In the midst of Collins’ probe, Illuzzi filed baseless complaints against Suntag because he was mad at Collins. These complaints carried no legal weight, but they certainly carried political weight, coming from an influential State Senator who already had 15 years’ seniority at the time.

Based on the three complaints, respondent stipulated to violations of 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) (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).  The parties jointly recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of eighteen months, effective October 13, 1994.  The Board accepted the stipulation to facts and ethical violations but rejected the recommended sanction.  It recommends that respondent be disbarred.

“Respondent stipulated” is legalese for “Illuzzi admitted his guilt on the record.” Three counts: using his public office to influence court proceedings, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice, and conduct displaying a lack of fitness to practice law.

The State Bar’s Professional Conduct Board recommended that Illuzzi be permanently stripped of his law license. The Supreme Court decided to reduce the penalty to a continued suspension. Illuzzi’s license was reinstated in 1998.

This is the most serious episode in Illuzzi’s legal career, but there are others. Publicly available information can easily be found by a moderately enterprising reporter. (I found this Supreme Court docket in a couple minutes on Google.) These official proceedings reveal Illuzzi as a man with a propensity for ignoring ethical standards and for seeking vengeance on his foes.

I’m not necessarily saying that Vince Illuzzi is unfit to be Attorney General. (Although speaking purely for myself, there’s no way in hell I’d vote for the guy.) What I’m saying — and will keep saying until Vermont media start paying attention — is that there are serious, real, unavoidable questions about Illuzzi’s fitness for the position. These questions must be fully addressed, the sooner the better. They should certainly be fully and publicly explored long before Vince Illuzzi is handed a major-party nomination for Attorney General.