The Vermont Supreme Court has refused to restore the law license of suspended Addison County State’s Attorney Eva Vekos, holding that neither the statutory expungement of her criminal drunk-driving record nor severe prosecutor staffing shortages in her county justify lifting her interim suspension.
In an entry order issued during its September 2026 term, the high court denied Vekos’s third motion to vacate her license suspension in In re Eva Vekos, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel) (Docket No. 26-AP-081 / PRB Case No. PRB-097-2024; 2026 VT 45). Vekos, the elected state’s attorney for Addison County, was initially placed on interim suspension in April 2026 after the court determined that her conviction for first-offense driving under the influence constituted a “serious crime” under Administrative Order 9, Rule 21. A formal professional misconduct complaint was filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in June 2026, but a hearing panel has yet to adjudicate the merits.
Vekos raised two main arguments in her bid for reinstatement. First, she argued that she was entitled to automatic reinstatement under Rule 21(F) because the trial court issued an expungement order pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7041(e) following her successful completion of a deferred sentence. The trial court ordered all records of her arrest, charge, and probation expunged over the State’s objection. Vekos contended that under Vermont law, expungements effectively erase criminal court history, eliminating the legal predicate for her suspension.
The Supreme Court majority—composed of Chief Justice Reiber and Justices Eaton, Waples and Drescher—rejected that argument. The court observed that Rule 21(F) provides for automatic reinstatement only when a lawyer demonstrates that an
“underlying conviction has been reversed or vacated”
due to a legal or factual defect. Reaffirming a prior ruling from July 2026, the court noted that striking an adjudication of guilt and expunging records under Vermont’s deferred-sentence statute does not vacate a conviction, and the plain language of Rule 21(F) makes no mention of expungement.
Vekos secondarily petitioned under Rule 21(D)(2), which grants the court discretion to terminate an interim suspension in extraordinary circumstances and in the interest of justice. She presented evidence showing that on August 7, 2026, her office’s remaining deputy state’s attorney resigned, leaving the Addison County State’s Attorney’s Office with no licensed prosecutors. The shortage forced the Vermont Attorney General to designate a Rutland County Deputy State’s Attorney as a Special Assistant Attorney General to oversee Addison County prosecutions. Vekos argued that mounting case backlogs and operational delays were harming crime victims, defendants, and local law enforcement.
Disciplinary Counsel opposed the petition, asserting that relief from interim suspension should be restricted to cases where reinstatement is “absolutely necessary.” The Supreme Court agreed with Disciplinary Counsel, ruling that state support systems were actively managing the county’s caseload and that Vekos had not met the extraordinary circumstances standard. Reinstatement was not justified, the court wrote, given that Vekos’s initial offense and actions showed a
“lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice and an indifference to legal obligation affecting her practice and drawing into question her suitability as a practitioner.”
Justice Nolan issued a spirited dissent, arguing that continuing the suspension 32 months after the underlying arrest served no protective purpose. Nolan stressed that Vekos had no private clients, had complied fully with court orders, had her record expunged, and was facing the final months of her elected term. Nolan urged the court to accept Vekos’s evidence regarding the “rather dire situation in her office,” noting that staffing gaps directly undermine public safety and administrative efficiency in Addison County.
Why it matters
This decision underscores the strict boundary Vermont courts maintain between state criminal expungement laws and professional attorney discipline. As a matter of legal analysis, the ruling clarifies that an expungement following a deferred sentence does not erase the professional misconduct underlying a conviction, nor does it meet the narrow threshold of a reversed or vacated conviction required for automatic license reinstatement under Administrative Order 9.
Practically, the decision leaves Addison County’s primary prosecutorial agency without its elected leader or any staff prosecutors for the foreseeable future. With all prosecutions remaining under the direct oversight of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, the ruling highlights the severe administrative strain created when an elected prosecutor faces license suspension. Unless the pending Professional Responsibility Board hearing panel quickly resolves the underlying disciplinary charges, Vekos will remain barred from performing her statutory duties through the remainder of her term.
Source: Supreme Court of Vermont opinion in In Re Eva Vekos, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
