The Vermont Supreme Court has doubled the sentence of a Woodstock attorney — suspending his law license for two years — ruling that his lack of remorse and failure to cooperate with an investigation into his misconduct warranted the harsher penalty.

The state Supreme Court issued its decision earlier this month, rejecting an appeal by Norman Watts from a decision by the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board, which oversees lawyers in the state.

That panel had issued a one-year suspension of Watts’ law license for multiple violations related to trust account practices, according to filings in the case.

Watts, whose office was based in Woodstock, argued several points in his appeal, including conflicts of interest involving disciplinary matters and the hearing panel that considered the matter. He said a one-year ban was too harsh.

In his judgmentthe state supreme court rejected his appeal and instead extended Watt’s law license suspension to two years.

“(Watt’s) attempts to minimize his actions and the harm caused to his clients are particularly troubling,” the court’s ruling said. “On appeal, (Watts) continues to show no remorse for his actions or any acknowledgment of the harm caused to both his clients and the legal profession at large.”

Watts said in an interview Wednesday that he was disappointed by the decision and was exploring his legal options, including a possible federal court challenge to the ruling.

“In this case, there was no significant misappropriation or anything like that in terms of financial crimes and they just pretty much ignored it,” Watts said of the court’s decision. “I think it’s a fatal flaw.”

Justice Harold Eaton wrote the ruling, which was also signed by Chief Justice Paul Reiber and Associate Justices William Cohen and Nancy Waples.

Judge Karen Carroll issued a dissenting opinion, calling for an even harsher penalty for Watts – deportation.

“(Watts) has demonstrated an unwillingness to conform his conduct to the rules,” Carroll wrote, adding, “(Watts) also engaged in fraudulent and malicious conduct during disciplinary proceedings and there are significant aggravating factors present.”

Watts, who was admitted to the Vermont Bar in 1987, focused his practice on employment discrimination, according to filings in the case.

Watts had received a public reprimand in 2019 from the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board as a result of his trust account practices, the ruling noted. After two trust account checks bounced in July 2020, an audit determined that Watts “continued to mismanage” the accounts, the ruling said.

“He still failed to track and maintain documentation of each trust account transaction; maintain a ledger card for each client showing the trust account’s activity and current balance; or reconcile the trust account at least monthly,” the decision said. “(Watts) also continued to commingled his law firm’s operating funds with funds belonging to clients.”

Watts’ violations caused two of his clients “a great deal of stress” and the loss of their money over several months by not returning their holders on time, the court wrote.

In one of those cases, according to the ruling, the customer paid more than four months’ worth of interest on a loan that they would not have paid if the funds had been immediately returned. The court found that the client was “negligently” overcharged in attorney’s fees and expenses.

Watts, in an interview Wednesday, said the Supreme Court’s decision did not consider any “mitigating factors” when considering the case. Watts talked about the legal work he’s done over the years representing clients against “unscrupulous employers.”

He said the suspension is currently in effect and he has already transferred his clients to another attorney and formally withdrawn from any case.

“I fulfilled my obligation in that regard,” he said.

The court’s decision to increase the penalty against an attorney who challenged a decision by the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board is rare but not unprecedented.

It was reported by the Rutland Herald on a 2020 case involving a Rutland attorney, Sigismund Wysolmerski, who had his year-long suspension upgraded to suspension on appeal.

In that case, according to the Rutland Herald report, the action was taken against Wysolmerski for “dishonest conduct” and “failure to keep his client informed.”