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

2,285 chars

yer’s own conduct.’’ From the facts recited above, the
          court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
          respondent has violated rule 8.1 (2) of the Rules of Pro-
          fessional Conduct, in that after being advised of a proba-
          ble cause finding against her, she failed to timely or
          completely respond to the disciplinary authority’s law-
          ful demand for information.
                                          B
                Count Two—Grievance Complaint #15-0688
            As to count two, the petitioner alleges violations of
          rules 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation) and 8.4
          (4) (misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
          The basis of the alleged violation stems from the respon-
          dent’s conduct in several matters that were filed in the
          Superior Court. The facts as to each case will be set
          out separately and then the alleged violations shall be
          addressed on the basis of the respondent’s actions in
          each case individually as well as collectively.
             Ronald Stone v. Bridgeport Board of Education
             In the matter of Stone v. Board of Education, Supe-
          rior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No.
          CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, the respondent represented the plain-
          tiff in a complaint alleging ‘‘adverse employment action
          because of the plaintiff’s race and in retaliation for his
          having raised a complaint of discrimination.’’ [Petition-
          er’s Ex. 4]. On September 3, 2014, the court, Bellis, J.,
          dismissed the action based on the respondent’s failure
          to appear at a status conference scheduled for that
          date. The dismissal was ordered after the respondent
          repeatedly failed to appear for status conferences, file
          pleadings, and respond to discovery. [Petitioner’s Ex.
          4, order dated February 26, 2015].
            The respondent’s repeated violations are outlined in
          the Bridgeport Board of Education’s July 7, 2014 motion
          for nonsuit, sanctions and judgment of dismissal. [Peti-
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 45

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text