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

2,394 chars

tion of persons unfit to practice in them.’’ (Internal quo-
         tation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Commit-
         tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 238, 558 A.2d 986 (1989);
         Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 288, 2 S. Ct. 569, 27 L. Ed.
         552 (1883); Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki, 150
         Conn. App. 472, 478, 91 A.3d 932, cert. denied, 314 Conn.
         931, 102 A.3d 83 (2014). An attorney, ‘‘as an officer of
         the court in the administration of justice, is continually
         accountable to it for the manner in which he exercises
         the privilege which has been accorded him. His admis-
         sion is upon the implied condition that his continued
         enjoyment of the right conferred is dependent upon his
         remaining a fit and safe person to exercise it, so that
         when he, by misconduct in any capacity, discloses that
         he has become or is an unfit of unsafe person to be
         entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of
         an attorney, his right to continue in the enjoyment of
         his professional privilege may and ought to be declared
         forfeited.’’ In re Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 450, 91 A. 274
         (1914). Therefore, ‘‘[i]f a court disciplines an attorney,
         it does so not to mete out punishment to an offender,
         but [so] that the administration of justice may be safe-
         guarded and the courts and the public protected from
         the misconduct or unfitness of those who are licensed
         to perform the important functions of the legal profes-
         sion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide
         Grievance Committee v. Botwick, 226 Conn. 299, 307,
         627 A.2d 901 (1993). An attorney ‘‘is an officer of the
         court . . . . Disciplinary proceedings not only concern
         the rights of the lawyer and the client, but also the
         rights of the public and the rights of the judiciary to
         ensure that lawyers uphold their unique position as
         officers . . . of the court. . . . An attorney must con-
         duct himself or herself in a manner that comports with
         the proper functioning of the judicial system.’’ (Internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Notopoulos v. Statewide
Page 38                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text