The Vermont Supreme Court has denied a request from Eva Vekos, the Addison County State’s Attorney, to lift her interim suspension following her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). The court's decision, filed under docket number 26-AP-081, emphasizes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Vekos has been on interim suspension since April 2026, after being convicted of a serious crime, which the court defined as any felony or lesser crime that adversely affects a lawyer’s honesty or fitness to practice law. The court's ruling is significant as it underscores the standards for attorney conduct and the implications of criminal convictions on professional responsibilities.
Background
Eva Vekos has served as the Addison County State’s Attorney, representing the state in criminal matters. Her interim suspension stems from a DUI conviction that occurred in December 2025, following an arrest in January 2024. The court found that her conviction warranted immediate suspension to protect the integrity of the legal profession.
Vekos filed her first motion to vacate the interim suspension shortly after it was imposed, claiming that she had completed her deferred sentence and that her conviction had been expunged under Vermont law. However, the court denied her requests, stating that expungement does not equate to the reversal or vacation of a conviction as required by the rules governing attorney reinstatement.
The Ruling
In its ruling, the Vermont Supreme Court reiterated that Vekos failed to demonstrate that her conviction had been reversed or vacated, which is a prerequisite for automatic reinstatement under Administrative Order 9, Rule 21(F). The court stated, “The plain language of the rule does not include ‘expungement’ as a basis for automatic reinstatement.” The ruling was made by a majority of the court, with Justice Christina E. Nolan dissenting.
The court also rejected Vekos' argument that extraordinary circumstances warranted her reinstatement under Rule 21(D)(2). The majority found that while Vekos cited staffing shortages in the Addison County State’s Attorney’s Office as a reason for her reinstatement, she did not provide sufficient evidence that her absence was causing actual harm to ongoing prosecutions. The court concluded, “We are not persuaded that it is ‘absolutely necessary’ that respondent’s license be reinstated or that it would be ‘in the interests of justice’ to do so.”
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Vekos and the legal community in Vermont. It reinforces the strict standards for attorney conduct and the consequences of criminal behavior on a lawyer's ability to practice law. The court's decision also highlights the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal system, particularly in cases involving elected officials.
Vekos' case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the interpretation of expungement laws and their impact on professional conduct. The court's ruling emphasizes that expungement does not automatically restore a lawyer's ability to practice law, which may influence other attorneys facing similar circumstances.
What's Next
Vekos can appeal the court's decision, but details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. Additionally, a formal disciplinary complaint against her remains pending, with no hearing panel assigned yet. The outcome of that proceeding will further determine her professional future.