The Vermont Supreme Court denied attorney Eva Vekos's request for automatic reinstatement of her law license following a DUI conviction. This decision affects Vekos, who is currently suspended from practicing law, and highlights the legal distinctions between striking an adjudication of guilt and vacating a conviction.
In December 2025, Vekos pled nolo contendere, meaning she did not contest the charge, to driving under the influence of alcohol. As a result, she received a deferred and probationary custodial term of six months. The court suspended her law license immediately, determining that her conviction reflected poorly on her fitness as a lawyer. The case was filed under docket number 26-AP-081.
The dispute arose when Vekos sought reinstatement after fulfilling the conditions of her probation. She argued that the court's decision to strike her adjudication of guilt meant she was entitled to have her license reinstated under Administrative Order 9, Rule 21(F). However, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel opposed her request, asserting that striking an adjudication of guilt does not equate to vacating a conviction.
The court ruled against Vekos, stating, "Respondent fails to show that her underlying conviction has been reversed or vacated as required by Rule 21(F)." The court emphasized that the terms “strike” and “vacate” have distinct legal meanings, with "vacate" meaning to nullify or cancel a conviction, while "strike" merely removes it from the record.
The ruling was made by the Vermont Supreme Court, which included Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber and Associate Justices Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Nancy J. Waples, Christina E. Nolan, and Michael P. Drescher. The court noted that the distinction between these terms is recognized both in legislative language and legal definitions.
In its decision, the court highlighted that Vekos's conviction was neither reversed nor vacated, and therefore, her request for automatic reinstatement under Rule 21(F) could not be granted. The court reiterated that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to determine whether an individual is fit to practice law, which is separate from the goals of criminal prosecutions.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for reinstatement of a law license in Vermont. It underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice. The decision may impact other attorneys facing similar situations, emphasizing the need for clear legal definitions in disciplinary matters.
Looking ahead, Vekos may have the option to appeal the decision, but details about any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also influence future disciplinary actions and reinstatement requests for attorneys in Vermont.