Proposed Amendments

The following Proposed Amendments are proposed by the Rules Committees and have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Proposed Order Amending Rule 4.1(2)(a) of the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings

Beginning in August of 2020, the Judiciary and Office of Child Support (OCS) commenced a pilot project in the Windham and Windsor units designed to explore a means to more efficiently provide service to defendants in cases filed where OCS was already providing services under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Title IV-D established a Child Support Enforcement Program. See 33 V.S.A. §4101(a) (designating OCS as agency responsible for Title IV-D in Vermont). The pilot project expanded and as of January 1, 2026, OCS was effecting service in the cases in which it provides IV-D services in all units in Vermont. The proposed amendments to V.R.F.P. 4.1 incorporate the provisions of A.O. 50 into the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings.  

Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by October 20, 2026, to Hon. Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady, Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Rules for Family Proceedings, at the following address:

Hon. Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady, Chair
Kerry.McDonald-Cady@vtcourts.gov
 

Proposed Order Amending Rules 9(b)(3) and 13 of the Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court

The proposed amendments to Rules 9(b)(3) and 13(c) remove the provisions precluding applicants from taking the bar examination after four failed attempts or using a transferred UBE score achieved after four failed attempts. Many other states do not limit the number of attempts needed to earn a passing score. See Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements, https://reports.ncbex.org/charts/chart-5. Moreover, removing the limitation might increase the number of admitted attorneys in Vermont and thereby increase access to legal services.

Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by September 9, 2026, to Andrew Strauss, Licensing Counsel of the Office of Attorney Licensing, at the following address:

Andrew Strauss, Licensing Counsel
Andrew.Strauss@vtcourts.gov
 

Proposed Order Amending Rule 49 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure

This proposal amends the rule for clarity in three respects. The language is updated from papers to documents where applicable, the language referring to self-represented defendants is made uniform, and shall is replaced with must, may, or will, where appropriate. Where changed, the rule clarifies the prior use of shall and no substantive change is intended.

This rule is substantively amended in paragraph (d)(1) to update the requirements for a proper signature on written motions, written notices, or similar documents. The proposed update more closely aligns this rule with the requirements for filings in V.R.C.P. 11.

Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by July 6, 2026, to Hon. John Treadwell, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, at the following address:

Honorable John Treadwell, Chair
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure
John.Treadwell@vtcourts.gov
 

Proposed Order Amending Rule 41.1 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 41.1 concerning nontestimonial identification orders is amended to address orders regarding children who either are, or may be, the subject of delinquency petitions or criminal charges.  The present proposed amendments serve to update obsolete terminology and add certain procedural protections for children. The proposed amendments to subdivision (m) are aimed to provide greater consistency with intervening statutory amendments that have established Youthful Offender status and expanded age-based jurisdiction of the Family Division in certain delinquency and Youthful Offender cases.  The definition of offense is updated and a new definition of child is provided.

Subdivision (n) is reorganized into four paragraphs. Rule 41.1(n)(1) prescribes the types of cases in which nontestimonial identification orders for children may be requested. Paragraph (n)(2) establishes additional procedural protections for children regarding appointment and presence of a guardian ad litem and attorney. Paragraph (n)(3) is a nonsubstantive amendment as to the Title 33 chapters that address jurisdiction and procedure in delinquency, Youthful Offender, and Criminal Division proceedings as to children or youth.

Finally, throughout the rule the word shall is replaced with must, may, or will, where appropriate. Where changed, the rule clarifies the prior use of shall without intended substantive change.

Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by July 6, 2026, to Hon. John Treadwell, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, at the following address:

Honorable John Treadwell, Chair
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure
John.Treadwell@vtcourts.gov
 

Proposed Order Amending Rule 32.1 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure

This proposal updates the procedures for revocation and modification of probation with greater specificity to provide clarity and a consistent process for probationers.  New Rule 32.1(a)(1) addresses initiation of proceedings for violation of probation.  Under (a)(1)(A) and (B), the initiation process is separated into those beginning with a warrant or summons and those based on emergency arrest.  The arrest provision expressly follows 28 V.S.A. § 301. Rule 32.1(a)(1)(C) sets standards for release on citation. Rule 32.1(a)(2) adopts procedural rules for initial appearances and release from custody for probationers alleged to have committed a violation of probation. Rule 32.1(a)(2)(D), regarding preliminary probable cause hearings, adopts the process of the previous version of this rule with minimal updates to the language. Rule 32.1(a)(3) concerns the revocation hearing and adapts the language from prior Rule 32.1(a)(2). The proposed rule incorporates statutory requirements by requiring the State to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence and providing standards for when probation may be revoked and confinement ordered.

Rule 32.1(b) addresses modification of probation. Rule 32.1(b)(1) requires a hearing as the default process to modify probation and provides the minimum rights afforded the probationer for the hearing. Rule 32.1(b)(2) creates a narrow exception where the court need not hold a hearing to modify probation.

Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by July 6, 2026, to Hon. John Treadwell, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, at the following address:

Honorable John Treadwell, Chair
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure
John.Treadwell@vtcourts.gov
 

Proposed Order Amending Rule 55(a) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure

The proposed amendment to Rule 55(a) requires a movant to provide the legal basis for service outside the state when default judgment is sought. Under V.R.C.P. 4(e), service outside the state can be accomplished by complying with either the manner required for service within the state or “in any manner in which service may be effected under the laws of the state in which the person is served.” This amendment seeks to avoid delays in ascertaining proper service when a movant seeks default judgment and claims that service was made in conformance with out-of-state rules. The amendment puts the burden on the movant to provide the court with the statute or rule that contains the service requirements. 

Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by June 7, 2026, to Bridget Asay, Esq., Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure, at the following address:

Bridget Asay, Esq., Chair
Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure
BAsay@stris.com

Proposed Order Amending Rule 79(a) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure

The proposed amendment to Rule 79(a) clarifies the date of entry on the civil docket for temporary, after-hours orders. There are several types of cases in which parties can seek emergency relief outside of regular court hours. If these orders are granted, they are effective right away but are not immediately entered into the case-management system. The proposed amendment provides that the date of the entry on the docket must reflect the date the order was signed and effective, not the date the order was actually entered into the case-management system.

Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by June 7, 2026, to Bridget Asay, Esq., Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure, at the following address:

Bridget Asay, Esq., Chair
Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure
BAsay@stris.com