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

2,814 chars

deposition to attend on January 29, 2015, which had to
         be completed by January 31, 2015. [Petitioner’s Ex. 4,
         caseflow request]. That request was denied by the court
         that same day. [Petitioner’s Ex. 4, order]. The court had
         previously advised the respondent not to use a caseflow
         request to ask for a continuance as such a request
         needed to be made by proper motion.6 Nevertheless,
         the respondent persisted in utilizing a caseflow request
         to seek continuances. At the hearing on the motion to
         open, the court set out on the record the respondent’s
         history of nonappearance in the case. The respondent
         did not appear at the hearing and, as a result, was
         contacted and ordered to appear in court that after-
         noon, at which time she did appear. [Petitioner’s Ex.
         4, Transcript dated January 29, 2015].
            On February 26, 2015, the court entered an order
         indicating that the respondent did not provide a good
         and compelling reason to open the judgment. The court
         held ‘‘given the pattern in this case the plaintiff’s counsel
         filing caseflow requests rather than proper continuance
         requests, appearing hours late for scheduled events,
         and importantly, by repeatedly failing to appear for
         scheduled events, along with the [inexcusable] neglect
         of counsel leading to the dismissal of the case, the court
         cannot in good conscience find reasonable cause. As
            6
              The respondent had done the same thing in the matter of Miller v. Board
         of Education, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-
         XX-XXXXXXX-S, in which she had sued to collect attorney’s fees for representa-
         tion of an employee of the defendant. The court had admonished her not
         to use a caseflow request form in seeking a continuance of the matter but,
         rather, to file a motion for continuance. On July 10, 2012, Judge Bellis
         dismissed that case because the respondent failed to appear for trial. The
         court, in ruling on a motion for reconsideration indicated ‘‘the plaintiff
         improperly filed a caseflow request rather than a proper motion for continu-
         ance. The present case was set down for a trial well over six months
         beforehand, a date the plaintiff selected.’’ [Respondent’s Ex. D]. At the
         presentment hearing, the respondent acknowledged in her testimony that
         she understood that to mean that she should not file a caseflow request
         when requesting a continuance. [Tr. 4 92:17–20, Miller].
Page 48                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text