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

2,374 chars

tioner’s Ex. 4]. On January 7, 2014, the court had ordered
         that the parties appear for a status conference on Jan-
         uary 23, 2014. The defendant’s counsel appeared but
         the respondent failed to attend. On February 21, 2014,
         the court again ordered the parties to attend a status
         conference, this time on March 13, 2014. On the day of
         the scheduled status conference, the respondent filed a
         caseflow request indicating she had a conflicting status
         conference involving a family case in the Superior Court
         at Hartford. [Petitioner’s Ex. 4, Caseflow Request]. No
         action was taken on the request, thereby leaving the
         respondent compelled to appear in Bridgeport for the
         status conference, but she did not do so.
            On March 19, 2014, the defendant filed a second
         amended motion for modification of scheduling order
         and sanctions because of the plaintiff’s failure to appear
         for his deposition, despite numerous notices, and to
         attend court ordered status conferences. [Petitioner’s Ex.
         4]. On March 28, 2014, the court yet again ordered the
         parties to appear for a status conference on April 10,
         2014, and indicated the defendant’s motion would be
         heard on that date. The defendant’s counsel appeared,
         but again the respondent did not appear. [Id.] Following
         her receipt of a call from the clerk’s office that morning
         inquiring as to her whereabouts, the respondent arrived
         almost two hours late. [Id.] The court then held a hear-
         ing on the defendant’s motion and made clear to the
         respondent that if she failed again to appear or meet a
         deadline, the court would dismiss the case. [Petitioner’s
         Ex. 4, Transcript dated April 10, 2014 22:18–26].
            On June 15, 2014, the respondent sent opposing coun-
         sel an e–mail indicating her availability for the deposi-
         tion of the plaintiff on July 2, 2014. Based on that
         request, the defendant’s counsel issued a deposition
         notice to the respondent confirming the scheduling of
         the deposition. [Petitioner’s Ex. 4, exhibits E and F to
Page 46                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text