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

2,369 chars

discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, both in violation
         of her constitutional rights.
           Following a three day hearing, the trial court issued
         a comprehensive memorandum of decision. The court
         granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss count three
         insofar as it alleged violations of rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2),
         (3) and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because
         the plaintiff conceded that it had not proven by clear
         and convincing evidence that the defendant violated
         those subdivisions. The court denied the defendant’s
         motion as to the remaining allegations in count three
         and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding
         by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
         had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as set
         forth in counts one through four and suspending the
         defendant from the practice of law for a total effective
         period of one year.2 The court concluded that the defen-
         dant had failed to meet her burden of proof as to her
         special defenses, which, as alleged, were legally insuffi-
         cient because they merely recited legal conclusions.
         The court also noted that the special defenses consti-
         tuted an independent cause of action. The defendant
         appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the
         Appellate Court, and the appeal was transferred to this
         court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and
         Practice Book § 65-1.
           The defendant’s first claim on appeal arises out of
         the trial court’s denial of her motion for articulation.
         Specifically, the defendant sought an articulation on
         twenty-seven ‘‘points,’’ or issues, that she claimed were
         not fully addressed in the trial court’s memorandum of
         decision. After the trial court denied the motion, the
         defendant filed a motion for review of the trial court’s
           2
             Specifically, the court ordered the following suspensions to run concur-
         rently: thirty days as to count one, six months as to count two, one year
         as to count three, and one year as to count four.
Page 32                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text