Throughout this year’s campaign for Auditor of Accounts one of the things that has mystified us has been the apparent media consensus that Vince Illuzzi’s long history of ethics violations as an attorney is irrelevant to his qualifications to serve in this important office.
Or maybe it’s not so much a consensus as a willful choice to send his professional record right down the memory hole.
We don’t share that view here. In fact, we believe that Mr. Illuzzi’s record of ethics violations is so extreme that even without any other consideration of his qualifications we find that he is ethically and temperamentally unfit to serve in any statewide office.
Let’s take a look at the record. It has been said that Mr. Illuzzi may have been disciplined for ethics violations more than any other attorney in Vermont. In their 1993 decision suspending his license the Supreme Court pointed out that since 1968 there was only one other attorney who, like Mr. Illuzzi, had been disciplined five times. His violations are not limited to minor or technical violations. They demonstrate a long record of disregard for his ethical obligations to the court and to the public. What is more telling than the long list of violations, though, is what the specific violations say about Mr. Illuzzi.
First, Mr. Illuzzi is has a long history of ethics violations involving dishonesty. Honesty is the most fundamental value of legal ethics, and just as fundamental in public office. If the people cannot count on honest service from their elected officials those officials do not deserve to hold office.
Mr. Illuzzi’s very first violation occurred in his early years as a prosecutor. In fact on his very first day on the job, Illuzzi was stopped for speeding and then got his boss—the State’s Attorney but not an attorney—to write a letter that the speeding had been necessary because he was rushing to a murder investigation. Of course, the story was a lie, Illuzzi knew it was a lie, and he received a public reprimand from the Vermont Supreme Court for his dishonesty. In another case Illuzzi was given a private reprimand for “knowingly concealing facts or making a false statement” when he was in court representing a client and implied to the court that his client was in jail, even though he knew that the client had been released while awaiting trial on other charges.
Second, Mr. Illuzzi has demonstrated a tendency to cut corners to achieve the results he wants. Whether it is going behind the back of opposing attorneys to undermine their relationship with their clients, trying to hide behind his status as a state senator to avoid responsibility for his ethical violations, or continuing to represent clients after being placed on suspension, he has shown that he simply doesn’t believe that he is bound by the legal and ethical obligations that attach to the privileged position he holds as an attorney. In one of his cases the Supreme Court found that “His cumulative disciplinary record demonstrates a cavalier attitude toward the profession's ethical practices.” If this is the attitude he has toward his ethical obligations as a lawyer, what can we expect of him as Auditor?
Finally, Mr. Illuzzi’s record shows that he is vindictive. In the 1990’s he filed a series of judicial conduct complaints against Judge David Suntag, and was later forced to admit that he did it both because he did not like Judge Suntag and in order to get revenge against Suntag’s wife, who had prosecuted him in some of his disciplinary proceedings. The Auditor of Accounts has great freedom to decide what entities and agencies to investigate, and how to conduct those investigations. If Mr. Illuzzi is elected this makes us wonder if he will abuse that power to investigate and punish his enemies inside and outside of state government.
Mr. Illuzzi’s defenders point out that his ethical violations are in the past, that when he applied to have his license reinstated the Supreme Court found that he had rehabilitated himself, and that when he returned from his license suspension he was a changed man. Someone who believes this might certainly reach a different conclusion and justify supporting his candidacy.
More recently we have learned that Mr. Illuzzi routinely fails to record committee hearings over which he presides, leaving no documentation of public testimony affecting matters of public importance. Over a six year period as chair of the Institutions Committee there were only twelve recorded committee hearings. The Auditor’s office should be all about transparency and accountability. Mr. Illuzzi’s failure to regularly record public hearings shows his lack of concern with those principles.
At GMD, considering the importance of the office he seeks and the implications for the public trust if the powers of this office are abused, we do not believe that Mr. Illuzzi should be entrusted with this position.
Since when is competence a requirement for Republican politicians? After Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, it seems that incompetence, hatred for facts, willful ignorance and brazen corruption are required for one to be a Republican politician.
So Illuzzi is Vermont’s top Republican, given that requirement.
You seem like a little kid who is pissed off that no one cares about what the kid cares about. I’ve read all this stuff before on your website, and apparently no one finds it as fascinating as you do. And apparently the voters have chosen Vince repeatedly despite this record. And the Supreme Court reinstated his license to practice law. If they don’t see him as a threat to the world with a law license, what makes you guys the arbiters of ethics? Move on!