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

2,399 chars

requests’ rather than proper motions for continuance,
          the court will not entertain a motion to reconsider or
          reargue this motion.’’ [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, order February
          25, 2018]. The respondent testified that she had believed
          that the hearing was scheduled for the following week.
          No appeal was taken from the court’s order dismissing
          the case.
            At the presentment hearing, the respondent testified
          as to the circumstances of her illness and her condition
          that prevented her from appearing at the September
          11, 2014 commencement of jury selection in the Mesz-
          aros v. Banks matter and the subsequent February 25,
          2015 hearing on the motion to open judgment. Specifi-
          cally, she recounted that her condition was such that
          she required bed rest. However, under questioning by
          the Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant in the federal court matter
          of Smith v. Dept. of Correction, United States District
          Court, Docket No. 13-CV-8L8 (VLB) (D. Conn.), the
          respondent conceded that she was not diagnosed with
          any medical condition until September 15, 2014, and
          that she had not been prescribed bed rest by any physi-
          cian. [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, objection to motion to open].
          In that same case, the respondent had filed an affidavit
          dated November 5, 2014, that addressed her health.
          Paragraph 14 of the affidavit reads as follows: ‘‘As a
          consequence of this health issue, many work matters
          have been delayed. My seventeen day trip outside of
          the country on an evangelistic and preaching mission
          (July 31 through August 17) also meant that many mat-
          ters accumulated during my absence that required work
          upon my return. When added to new matters that accu-
          mulated while I was on medical rest the work has not
          yet been caught up.’’ [Respondent’s Ex. M].
             As to rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
          it provides that ‘‘[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable
          diligence and promptness in representing a client.’’ The
          commentary to this rule provides that ‘‘[a] lawyer must
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 51

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text