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

2,551 chars

violations of rules 1.15 (a) (5) and (c)1 (safekeeping
         property) and 8.1 (2) (bar admission and disciplinary
         matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Count
         two alleges violations of rules 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expe-
         diting litigation), and 8.4 (4) (misconduct). Count three
         alleges violations of rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2), (3), (4) and
         (5) and (b) (communications). Count four alleges that
         with respect to General Statutes § 51-88 and Practice
         Book § 2-44A, the respondent violated rule 5.5 when
         she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by pro-
         viding legal advice and drafting legal documents for a
         client relative to an Appellate Court matter while under
         an order of suspension by that court.
           The respondent filed an answer and raised two ‘‘affir-
         mative defenses’’ (#109) which claim that the recom-
         mendations of the petitioner and the decisions of the
         Statewide Grievance Committee (SGC) were based on
         racially discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, both in
         violation of the respondent’s constitutional rights.
            The court held a hearing on the matter on June 25,
         26 and 27, 2018, at which time the parties were heard
         and provided testimony and evidence. The parties stipu-
         lated to all of the petitioner’s exhibits as being full
         exhibits. Following the hearing, the parties submitted
         posttrial briefs, the last of which was filed on August
         27, 2018. On July 30, 2018, subsequent to the completion
         of the hearing, the respondent filed a ‘‘motion to con-
         form pleadings to the proofs’’ (#123) which was in real-
         ity, by virtue of its text, a request to amend her affirma-
         tive defenses. The court has read the pleading liberally
           1
              In paragraph 7 (b) of its complaint, the petitioner refers to a violation
         of ‘‘Rule 1.15c’’ although there is no such section in the Rules of Professional
         Conduct. However, during the presentment hearing and in its posttrial brief,
         the reference was made to rule 1.15 (c), which is substantively the section
         that was referred to and addressed by the parties. As such, it is clear the
         reference in the complaint is a scrivener’s error and will be treated as such
         by the court.
Page 36                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text