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

2,510 chars

As to rule 3.2, relative to expediting litigation, it states
that ‘‘[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expe-
dite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.’’
The commentary to that rule provides that ‘‘[d]ilatory
practices bring the administration of justice into disre-
pute. . . . It is not a justification that similar conduct
is often tolerated by the bench and bar. The question
is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith
would regard the course of action as having some sub-
stantial purpose other than delay.’’ The facts set forth
above relative to the allegations of count two are replete
with evidence of the respondent’s repeated failure to
attend scheduled court conferences, hearings, deposi-
tions, etc., that caused undue delay in the progress of
multiple cases. The court finds from the facts above
that the respondent not only delayed and frustrated the
attempts of the court and opposing parties to obtain a
timely resolution of the matters pending before the
court, but also failed to make reasonable efforts to
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of her
own clients. Accordingly, there is clear and convincing
evidence that the respondent committed a violation of
rule 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct pro-
vides in part that ‘‘[i]t is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to,’’ among other things, ‘‘(4) [e]ngage in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice
. . . .’’ ‘‘It is well established that members of the bar
[must] conduct themselves in a manner compatible with
the role of courts in the administration of justice.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Notopoulos v. State-
wide Grievance Committee, supra, 277 Conn. 235. The
respondent’s lack of diligence, which as noted above
was in some cases either negligent or an intentional
avoidance of her various obligations, led to the dis-
missal of her clients’ matters. This conduct was cer-
tainly prejudicial to the administration of justice in that
November 3, 2020 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 53

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text