Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text

2,431 chars
Rule 1.4 (a) states in relevant part that ‘‘[a] lawyer
          shall . . . (5) consult with the client about any relevant
          limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer
          knows that the client expects assistance not permitted
          by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.’’
          Rule 1.4 (b) provides that ‘‘[a] lawyer shall explain a
          matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit
          the client to make informed decisions regarding the
          representation.’’ The respondent has admitted in her
          pleadings that the Danbury Judicial Grievance Panel
          made a finding of probable cause against her relative
          to a complaint brought against her by Jasmine Williams
          and that any action for an order of presentment was
          to be consolidated with the other pending matters that
          are the subject of this action.
             The court finds the following facts as to this count.
          On December 9, 2014, the Appellate Court in Coble
          v. Board of Education, Willis v. Community Health
          Services, Inc., Addo v. Rattray, and Cimmino v. Mar-
          coccia entered an order that read as follows: ‘‘After
          reviewing Attorney Josephine Smalls Miller’s conduct
          in [Coble v. Board of Education, AC 36677, Willis v.
          Community Health Services, Inc., AC 36955, Cimmino
          v. Marcoccia, AC 35944, and Addo v. Rattray, AC 36837],
          the Appellate Court has determined that Attorney Jose-
          phine Smalls Miller has exhibited a persistent pattern of
          irresponsibility in handling her professional obligations
          before this court. Attorney [Josephine] Smalls Miller’s
          conduct has included the filing of frivolous appeals and
          the failure to file, or to file in timely and appropriate
          fashion, all documents and materials necessary for the
          perfection and prosecution of appeals before this court.
             ‘‘Attorney Josephine Smalls Miller’s conduct before
          this court has threatened the vital interests of her own
          clients while consuming an inordinate amount of this
          court’s time and her opponents’ resources. Attorney
          Josephine Smalls Miller has neither accepted personal
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 55