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

2,372 chars
exercised possession and control over them, evidenced
         by her issuing two separate $10,000 checks out of the
         account as donations to her church on June 7 and July
         21, 2013. [Petitioner’s Ex. 5]. The respondent character-
         ized the transaction as an honest one that had no nefari-
         ous motive. In fact, the court finds that the respondent
         had no intent through this deposit to deceive anyone
         or deprive anyone of funds that otherwise rightfully
         belonged to them. However, the fact that the respondent
         returned the balance of the funds to the donor some
         several months later does not excuse her violation. At
         the time of the deposit, the funds did not belong to a
         client of the respondent and had no connection to the
         representation of a client. Rules of Professional Con-
         duct 1.15 (b).
           As to rule 1.15 (c), it provides: ‘‘A lawyer may deposit
         the lawyer’s own funds in a client trust account for the
         sole purposes of paying bank service charges on that
         account or obtaining a waiver of fees and service
         charges on the account, but only in an amount neces-
         sary for those purposes.’’ Given the facts found by the
         court as recited above, there is clear and convincing
         evidence the respondent has violated rule 1.15 (c) of
         the Rules of Professional Conduct. There was no evi-
         dence that the funds deposited were to pay bank service
         charges. Further, the amount deposited could not rea-
         sonably be thought to be for the purpose of covering
         such charges, as they were tremendously in excess of
         any amount necessary to do so.
             As to rule 8.1 (2), it provides in relevant part that a
         lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter shall
         not ‘‘knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
         information from an admissions or disciplinary author-
         ity . . . .’’ The commentary to rule 8.1 provides that
         ‘‘it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to
         knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in
         connection with a disciplinary investigation of the law-
Page 44                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020