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

2,018 chars

Her multiple failures to appear for scheduled court
         matters in both the Stone and Meszaros matters reveal
         a pattern of both negligence and intentional avoidance
         of such matters, often to the detriment of her clients.
         In Stone, status conferences had to be rescheduled
         numerous times. The defendant was prevented from
         taking the deposition of the plaintiff because the respon-
         dent cancelled scheduled dates on very short notice,
         causing inconvenience to opposing counsel and parties.
         In Meszaros, the respondent waited until literally the
         next to last day before filing the motion to open dis-
         missal. Even accounting for the respondent’s credible
         testimony that the delay was partly due to the respon-
         dent seeking to obtain other counsel for her client, the
         court can make a reasonable inference from the facts
         above that the respondent’s workload, regardless of
         its size, exceeded her capacity to timely attend court
         appearances. This led to multiple dismissals of her cli-
         ents’ cases. The commentary to rule 1.3 states that ‘‘[a]
         client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the
         passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme
         instances . . . the client’s legal position may be
         destroyed. Even when the client’s interests are not
         affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can
         cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confi-
         dence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness.’’ Needless to say,
         it also undermines the public’s respect for the judicial
         system. The court finds from the facts above that there
         is clear and convincing evidence that the respondent
         has committed a violation of rule 1.3 of the Rules of
         Professional Conduct.
Page 52                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text