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

2,215 chars

ensure her compliance with the appellate rules and
          procedures and to protect her clients’ interests.
             ‘‘3. After June 9, 2015, upon the filing and granting of
          a motion for reinstatement, Attorney Josephine Smalls
          Miller may resume the practice of law before the Appel-
          late Court if she is otherwise qualified to practice law
          in the courts of this state.
            ‘‘4. The Appellate Court Clerk’s Office is directed not
          to accept for filing and to return any documents filed
          in violation of this order.
             ‘‘5. If Attorney Josephine Smalls Miller violates the
          provisions of this order she is subject to further sanc-
          tions.
             ‘‘It is further ordered that these matters are referred
          to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for review and further
          action as it is deemed appropriate.’’ [Petitioner’s Ex. 1;
          Respondent’s Ex. A].
            The respondent filed a writ of error to the Connecti-
          cut Supreme Court to challenge the order. The writ was
          dismissed on April 5, 2016. [Tr. 3 58:5–8, Miller].
             In October, 2016, the respondent met with Jasmine
          Williams (Williams). [Tr. 3 44:26–27, Miller]. In a child
          protection action in the Superior Court, Williams’ paren-
          tal rights to her two minor children had been termi-
          nated. Seeking review of the judgment, she retained
          Attorney James Hardy (Hardy) to file an appeal on her
          behalf. Hardy attempted to file the appeal but failed to
          make payment of the necessary filing fee. As a result,
          that appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
          Thereafter, Hardy filed a second appeal seeking the
          same review. The Office of the Attorney General filed
          an appearance on behalf of the state of Connecticut
          and moved to have that appeal dismissed also. [Tr. 3
          45:12–25, Miller]. At that point in time, Hardy referred
          Williams to the respondent. He credibly testified as to
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 57

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text