Background
Stephen Girdwood, an attorney licensed in both Vermont and New Hampshire, was placed on immediate interim suspension by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in January 2026 after assenting to allegations of serious professional misconduct. The New Hampshire proceeding found that Girdwood mishandled, commingled, and misappropriated funds he was holding in escrow, in violation of Rule 1.15 of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct and New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 50.
The New Hampshire court also found that Girdwood violated Rule 4.1 by knowingly concealing his mishandling of the escrowed funds from opposing counsel and her client; Rule 8.4(c) by falsely representing to opposing counsel that he had mailed a check for the client’s share of the escrowed funds when he had in fact misappropriated those funds; Rule 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act under New Hampshire law; and Rule 8.4(a) by engaging in all of the foregoing conduct.
Upon receiving notice of the New Hampshire suspension, the Vermont Supreme Court initiated reciprocal discipline proceedings under Administrative Order 9, Rule 24. The court notified both Girdwood and Vermont Disciplinary Counsel and afforded each thirty days to raise any claim that imposing identical discipline in Vermont would be unwarranted.
The Court’s Holding
Neither Girdwood nor Disciplinary Counsel raised any objection or demonstrated that reciprocal discipline would be unwarranted. Under Administrative Order 9, Rule 24(E), the out-of-state misconduct findings are conclusive for purposes of imposing identical discipline in Vermont, absent a showing that one of the narrow exceptions under Rule 24(D) applies.
Finding no basis in the record to depart from the New Hampshire sanction, the Vermont Supreme Court placed Girdwood on immediate interim suspension status. The court ordered him to comply with the notice and wind-down requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 27, which govern suspended attorneys’ obligations to clients and the court.
Key Takeaways
- Vermont automatically mirrors out-of-state attorney discipline: once another jurisdiction imposes suspension, Vermont will impose the identical sanction unless the attorney or Disciplinary Counsel affirmatively demonstrates an exception within thirty days.
- Under A.O. 9, Rule 24(E), a disciplinary finding from another jurisdiction is conclusive as to the underlying misconduct for Vermont reciprocal-discipline purposes.
- Misappropriation of escrowed client funds, combined with affirmative misrepresentations to opposing counsel, resulted in immediate interim suspension in both New Hampshire and Vermont.
- An attorney’s assent to the disciplinary findings in the originating jurisdiction accelerates reciprocal proceedings and forecloses most avenues to contest the Vermont sanction.
Why It Matters
This entry order is a textbook illustration of how Vermont’s reciprocal discipline framework operates in practice. Attorneys licensed in multiple states face compounding consequences when sanctioned in any one jurisdiction: Vermont’s rule treats the foreign finding as conclusive and imposes identical discipline unless a narrow exception is proven, placing the burden squarely on the respondent to act quickly and affirmatively.
For practitioners, the case underscores that escrow and trust-account obligations are among the most strictly enforced duties in professional responsibility law. Misappropriation of client or third-party funds — even accompanied by concealment rather than outright theft — will typically trigger immediate suspension and, through reciprocal-discipline rules, can ripple across every state in which the attorney holds a license.