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

2,409 chars

such the motion to open is denied.’’ [Petitioner’s Ex. 4,
          order]. When questioned at the presentment hearing as
          to the reasons why she did not appear at the various
          scheduled events, the respondent repeatedly replied
          with words to the effect of ‘‘I don’t know at this time.’’
          [Tr. 2 73:14, 74:7, 74:10, 75:5, 75:8, 76:20, Miller].
            The dismissal of the case was not appealed.
                    Gabor Meszaros v. Leonard Banks
             In the matter of Meszaros v. Banks, Superior Court,
          judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-
          S, a Bridgeport police officer brought a claim against
          the defendant for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle
          accident. [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, docket sheet]. The respon-
          dent filed a counterclaim on behalf of the defendant
          alleging that the plaintiff was responsible for the defen-
          dant’s personal injuries. [Tr. 3 35:9–15, Miller]. The case
          was scheduled to begin jury selection on September 9,
          2014. [Tr. 3 36:20–24, Miller]. On September 8, 2014, the
          plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion for continuance for
          the reason that he had a funeral to attend. The motion
          was granted that same date. In addition, the respondent
          had a pretrial conference in Waterbury scheduled for
          September 11, 2014. As a result, the parties agreed that
          jury selection would begin at noon on September 11,
          2014. [Tr. 3 37:22–24, Miller]. That morning, the respon-
          dent attended the pretrial conference at the Waterbury
          Superior Court. [Tr. 3 38:3–9, Miller]. She remained
          there until approximately 11 a.m., but then drove to
          Danbury, claiming she was not feeling well. [Tr. 3 38:23–
          27, Miller]. Upon returning to her office in Danbury,
          the respondent filed a caseflow request with the court,
          stating: ‘‘Counsel for defendant Leonard Banks required
          to seek medical treatment from primary care physi-
          cian. Continuance is sought until after medical appoint-
          ment on September 11, 2014.’’ [Petitioner’s Ex. 3; case-
          flow request dated September 11, 2014; Tr. 3 39:13–16,
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 49

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text