In re Amy Klinger, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2017-320 JANUARY TERM, 2020 In re Amy Klingler, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel*) } } } } } Original Jurisdiction Professional Responsibility Board PRB DOCKET NO. 2018-018 In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Respondent Amy Klinger is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the State of Vermont. In September 2017, at the joint request of respondent and Disciplinary Counsel, respondent was placed on interim suspension status due to a medical condition that, at that time, prevented her from practicing law. See A.O. 9, Rule 18(B). Respondent now moves for dissolution of the interim suspension order. She states that her disability is now under control. She provided documentation from her primary treatment coordinators to Disciplinary Counsel. Disciplinary Counsel does not oppose respondent’s dissolution motion. Based on the parties’ representations, we conclude that respondent is no longer under a disability and she does not “presently pose[] a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” A.O. 9, Rule 18(A). We therefore grant respondent’s request to dissolve the interim suspension order and we release the trustee, appointed in September 2017, from her duties in this case. See A.O. 9, Rule 18(D). As nothing more remains pending in this matter, this case is now closed. BY THE COURT: Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice Beth Robinson, Associate Justice Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice William D. Cohen, Associate Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
