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

2,513 chars

Hardy with the appeal by drafting a pleading entitled
appellant’s objection to petitioner/appellee’s motion to
dismiss dated September 22, 2016. [Petitioner’s Ex. 12].
Thereafter, pursuant to the retainer agreement, the
respondent reviewed the forty-five page Superior Court
decision, as well as client notes and documents pro-
vided by Hardy. [Tr. 3 50:3–14, Miller]. She continued
to assist Hardy and Williams with the appeal by drafting
a motion for reconsideration of the Appellate Court’s
granting of a motion to dismiss and forwarded it to
Hardy for him to file in the Appellate Court. She also
advised Hardy and Williams that a motion for permis-
sion to file a late appeal should be pursued. Based on
that advice, she drafted the motion dated December 6,
2016, and again forwarded it to Hardy for filing under
his letterhead. [Tr. 3 51:21–27, Miller; Petitioner’s Ex.
12]. Following a ruling from the Appellate Court denying
the motion for permission to do the late filing, the
respondent met with Williams to consider other legal
options. [Tr. 3 53:15–25, Miller; Petitioner’s Ex. 9;
Respondent’s Ex. U].
At the time of the execution of the retainer letter
with Williams, the respondent knew she had been sus-
pended by the Appellate Court from representing clients
in that court.8 The information as to the limitation on
her ability to practice before the Appellate Court was
not found within any of the terms of the written retainer
agreement. Although the retainer agreement indicated
Hardy would be responsible for oral argument, this
does not excuse the respondent’s failure to completely
provide all relevant information to Williams that would
enable her to make an informed decision regarding the
8
In fact, the court later clarified the respondent’s status with that court
by a second order of February 15, 2018, which specifically stated she could
not represent any clients in the court. The respondent had contended that
the original December 9, 2014 order only prohibited her from appearing
before the Appellate Court.
November 3, 2020 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 59

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text