Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)

Citation: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Parent Document: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2020-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4801014/office-of-chief-disciplinary-co... ↗

Full Text

2,339 chars

The trial court’s memorandum of decision sets forth
          a comprehensive recitation of the facts, which we sum-
          marize in relevant part. In March, 2018, the plaintiff filed
          a four count amended presentment against the defen-
          dant, alleging numerous incidents of misconduct. Count
          one alleged that the defendant violated rules 1.15 (a)
          (5) and (c) and 8.1 (2) of the Rules of Professional
          Conduct by depositing personal funds into her IOLTA1
          account and, thereafter, failing to timely or completely
          respond to the disciplinary counsel’s lawful demand for
          information regarding the account. Count two alleged
          that the defendant violated rules 1.3, 3.2, and 8.4 (4) of
          the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to appear
          for scheduled court matters on multiple occasions, which
          resulted in the dismissal of her clients’ actions and
          claims. Count three alleged that the defendant violated
          rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and (b) of the Rules
          of Professional Conduct by failing to adequately com-
          municate to her client certain limitations on her abil-
          ity to represent the client before the Appellate Court
          given that the defendant was suspended from the prac-
          tice of law before the Appellate Court at that time.
          Finally, count four alleged that the defendant violated
          rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct when
          she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by
          providing legal advice and drafting legal documents for
          a client relative to an Appellate Court matter while the
          defendant was suspended from practicing before that
          court. In her answer, the defendant raised two affirma-
          tive defenses, claiming that the recommendations of
          the chief disciplinary counsel and the decisions of the
          Statewide Grievance Committee were based on racially
            1
              ‘‘IOLTA stands for ‘interest on lawyers’ trust accounts.’ ’’ Disciplinary
          Counsel v. Hickey, 328 Conn. 688, 692 n.2, 182 A.3d 1180 (2018).
November 3, 2020              CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 31

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text