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

2,507 chars

it not only impeded the ability of the court and opposing
         counsel to timely dispose of pending matters, it specifi-
         cally resulted in the dismissal of her own clients’ mat-
         ters without a hearing on the merits. This is particularly
         noteworthy with respect to this rule as the respondent
         was specifically forewarned by the court that continued
         failure to appear in court as scheduled or to meet a
         court deadline would result in dismissal of her client’s
         case. [Petitioner’s Ex. 4, transcript]. The court finds
         from the facts above that there is clear and convincing
         evidence that the respondent has committed a violation
         of rule 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
                                               C
               Count Three—Grievance Complaint #17-0405
            As to count three, the petitioner has alleged that the
         respondent violated rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2), (3), (4) and
         (5), as well as rule 1.4 (b) of the Rules of Professional
         Conduct, all of which relate to communications with
         one’s client. Upon completion of the presentation of
         the petitioner’s evidence, the respondent moved the
         court to dismiss count three on the basis that the peti-
         tioner had failed to put forth any evidence to establish a
         violation of those rules.7 Though not specifically address-
         ing that standard, the petitioner conceded that it had
         not set forth sufficient evidence to prove by clear and
         convincing evidence that the respondent had violated
         rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2), (3) and (4). It did however claim
         that there was sufficient evidence to proceed as to rule
         1.4 (a) (5) and (b). The court, having reserved decision
         on the respondent’s motion, hereby grants the motion
         as to rule 1.4 (a) (1), (2), (3) and (4) and denies it as
         to rule 1.4 (a) (5) and (b).
            7
              Though not cited by the respondent, the court took the position that
         her motion was based upon the standard set forth in Practice Book § 15-8
         for regular civil court cases that allows a party to seek a dismissal of a case
         where a plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case upon the conclu-
         sion of its evidence and has rested.
Page 54                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text