By Mike Donoghue, Vermont News First

The state office that prosecutes lawyers in Vermont for misconduct is asking the Vermont Supreme Court to consider the immediate interim suspension of the law license for Addison County State’s Attorney Eva P. Vekos.

The high court has scheduled a hearing on March 20. 

Prosecutor Jon T. Alexander said Vekos, through her legal counsel, repeatedly refused to cooperate with the investigation by the Professional Responsibility Office after her arrest for driving while under the influence last month.

Vekos announced on Feb. 14 that she was going on a “medical leave” following her arrest for DUI when responding to a homicide scene in Bridport on Jan. 25.  She pleaded not guilty on Feb. 12 in Vermont Superior Court to the criminal charge.   Chief Judge Thomas Zonay agreed to transfer the case to Chittenden County. 

Her defense lawyer, David Sleigh of St. Johnsbury, reported Vekos was taking the leave from work because she was not “fully grounded and up to the task” of serving as the chief prosecutor in Addison County.

Vekos, who was elected in November 2022, fully resumed work by March 4, Sleigh said.   

Alexander, who became disciplinary counsel for Vermont last year, said he reached out several times to Vekos to try to get an understanding of her fitness to practice law, but she ignored the inquiries, court records show.

Sleigh said he believes it was improper for Alexander to ask to see confidential medical records for Vekos. Alexander maintained he “will need to examine her relevant health records and perhaps speak to her treaters,” Sleigh wrote in his 7-page response. 

Sleigh said there is no reason for Alexander to examine the health records or speak to her treaters. 

The longtime defense lawyer said there is no known filed complaint by a member of the community that claims Vekos has shown she is unfit to be a lawyer or poses a risk to the public.

Sleigh also said a request to speak to John Campbell, executive director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs also was not a lawful demand.

Vekos “has no mental or physical issues that would impede her ability to practice law,” Sleigh wrote.

Vekos returned to work in early March, but it was unclear who determined she was fit for duty.  Alexander wants to know who and how Vekos, who is paid $132,226 a year, was cleared.

Alexander, in his 13-page petition seeking discipline,  outlined the steps he took during the investigation.

The Vermont Supreme Court, which said it received his petition on March 1, gave Vekos and her attorney until Wednesday to file a written response.  The five justices, in a signed order, said the hearing will be 10 a.m. March 20.

Sleigh in his written response said Alexander had failed to make an adequate showing on his demands to overcome the presumption of privilege for medical records.

Sleigh said a brief leave “during a time of great tumult following her arrest” was not enough to suggest that Vekos posed “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.”

Sleigh said Vekos has publicly apologized for her negative comments about law enforcement in Addison County.  A meeting is planned for April to make further amends, he said.   

Alexander said he made his first request for information the day after her arrest and asked her to respond by Feb. 15, but never got a response from Vekos.  Instead, Sleigh responded on Feb. 1 that an answer would be provided by Feb. 15.

Alexander said he made a second request after he learned on Feb. 1 Vekos had issued an email to law enforcement in Addison County saying she did not feel safe round them and would no longer meet with them.  

The Vermont State Police filed 8 sworn affidavits to support filing the DUI charge, Alexander said.

The Vermont Attorney General’s Office filed a corrected draft of the criminal charge on Feb. 12 after it discovered an error in the first charge submitted to the court.    

Alexander wrote Sleigh Feb. 15, one day after the announced medical leave and asked for “the reasons/causes, nature and expected duration of the medical leave.

Sleigh said he wrote back noting he did not have time that day to address the new requests, but said he intended to send his planned response shortly.  He said he would answer the new questions by Feb. 23, but eventually did include the Feb. 14 press release in his filing sent Feb. 15.

Alexander on Feb. 16 wrote again and said, “if SA Vekos is physically or mentally incapacitated from practicing laws (which is what taking a medical leave would strongly suggest) I need to know the details of that promptly.”  Alexander said he did not want to wait a week. 

Alexander asked if Vekos would cooperate “in a prompt way” and asked if she objected to talking to Campbell’s office.

After hearing nothing by Feb. 26, Alexander said he sent another email mentioning the missed deadline and said he would seek an interim suspension for Vekos due to what he said was her non-cooperation.

Sleigh responded that Vekos was preparing to return to work and there was no reason to examine health records or reach out to treaters.

Anderson, who joined the office last year, said the refusal to answer inquiries made Vekos a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.”

Sleigh said the state’s position was far from the truth.