Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text

2,396 chars
On June 9, 2016, a reviewing committee of the SGC
          conducted a hearing on complaint #15-0652 and issued
          a decision on November 18, 2016, finding clear and
          convincing evidence that the respondent knowingly
          failed to respond to the lawful demand for information
          from the disciplinary authority, noting that as of the
          date of that hearing, no documents had been submitted
          by the respondent. [Petitioner’s Ex. 13].
             At the presentment hearing before this court, the
          respondent submitted Respondent’s Exhibit O, which
          included an e-mail dated June 22, 2016, from the peti-
          tioner acknowledging receipt of some of the documents
          originally requested on March 30, 2016. It also again
          asked for the IOLTA statements from the bank support-
          ing the documents the respondent had belatedly for-
          warded. In her testimony, the respondent admitted that
          she did not timely or fully comply with the initial
          request. [Tr. 4 53:14–24, Miller]. She acknowledged that
          her reply was delivered not only eighty-four (84) days
          after the original request, but also after the reviewing
          committee had completed its hearing. [Tr. 4 53:4–10,
          Miller].
             As to rule 1.15 (a) (5) of the Rules of Professional
          Conduct, the rule reads in relevant part: ‘‘An IOLTA
          account shall include only client or third person funds
          . . . .’’ Third person funds held by an attorney may only
          be placed in an IOLTA account in connection with the
          representation of a client.5 The court finds by clear and
          convincing evidence that the respondent has violated
          rule 1.15 (a) (5). The $200,000 given to the respondent
          by Ms. I Am was an unconditional gift that was accepted
          by the respondent and became her personal property.
          She deposited those funds into her IOLTA account and
             5
               Rule 1.15 (b) provides in relevant part: ‘‘A lawyer shall hold property of
          clients or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with
          a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property. . . .’’
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 43