(a) No action shall be brought for professional negligence against a criminal defense
attorney under contract with or providing ad hoc legal services for the Office of
the Defender General unless the plaintiff has first successfully prevailed in a claim
for postconviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel in the same
or a substantially related matter. Failure to prevail in a claim for postconviction
relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel under contract with or providing
ad hoc legal services for the Office of the Defender General shall bar any claim against
the attorney based upon the attorney’s representation in the same or a substantially
related matter.
(b) In the performance of duties pursuant to a contract with or providing ad hoc legal
services to the Office of the Defender General, an attorney shall have the benefit
of immunity to the same extent as an attorney employed by the Defender General. (Added 2011, No. 100 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 2015, No. 58, § E.203, eff. June 11, 2015; 2017, No. 177 (Adj. Sess.), § 3.)
Stephan Palmer, Sr. v. Mark Furlan & State of Vermont, 2019 VT 42 (Vt. 2019). · cites it 5דAfter discovery, Attorney Furlan moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Attorney Furlan was statutorily immune from appellant’s claims under 13 V.S.A. § 5241; 1 Appellant also filed suit against the State of Vermont, on the theory that “[b]y the terms of 13 V.”
palmer v. furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 5דFurlan and, separately, against the State pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b). In addition, he claims gross negligence and willful misconduct against Mr.”
Palmer v. Furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5דFurlan and, separately, against the State pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b). In addition, he claims gross negligence and willful misconduct against Mr.”
palmer v. furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 4דFurlan has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that he is statutorily” immune from suit 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b) and that there is no evidentiary basis for any element of a negligence claim.”
Palmer v. Furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4דAttorney Furlan was an ad hoc defender—an independent contractor with the State rather than its employee—when he represented Mr. Palmer in his PCR case.”
Scanlon v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “First, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b), no ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be filed unless and until the plaintiff has prevailed in a claim for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5241(a) — 1 case
Stephan Palmer, Sr. v. Mark Furlan & State of Vermont, 2019 VT 42 (Vt. 2019). “After discovery, Attorney Furlan moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Attorney Furlan was statutorily immune from appellant’s claims under 13 V.S.A. § 5241; 1 Appellant also filed suit against the State of Vermont, on the theory that “[b]y the terms of 13 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 5241(b) — 6 cases
Stephan Palmer, Sr. v. Mark Furlan & State of Vermont, 2019 VT 42 (Vt. 2019). “After discovery, Attorney Furlan moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Attorney Furlan was statutorily immune from appellant’s claims under 13 V.S.A. § 5241; 1 Appellant also filed suit against the State of Vermont, on the theory that “[b]y the terms of 13 V.”
palmer v. furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Furlan and, separately, against the State pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b). In addition, he claims gross negligence and willful misconduct against Mr.”
Palmer v. Furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2017). “Furlan and, separately, against the State pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b). In addition, he claims gross negligence and willful misconduct against Mr.”
palmer v. furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Furlan has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that he is statutorily” immune from suit 13 V.S.A. § 5241(b) and that there is no evidentiary basis for any element of a negligence claim.”
Palmer v. Furlan (Vt. Super. Ct. 2018). “Attorney Furlan was an ad hoc defender—an independent contractor with the State rather than its employee—when he represented Mr. Palmer in his PCR case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.