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

2,686 chars

violation of rule 5.5. The Appellate Court’s order of
         December 9, 2014, as supplemented by its order of Feb-
         ruary 15, 2018, suspended the respondent from practic-
         ing and representing any individuals before the court
         (with one exception) until she had met the conditions set
         out for reinstatement. The respondent has acknowl-
         edged that she had not been reinstated by the court at
         any time prior to the presentment hearing. She also
         acknowledged that, while under suspension, she did
         work for Williams relative to her appeal in the Appellate
         Court, including, but not limited to, the review of notes
         and documents, legal research, drafting pleadings, and
         providing legal advice. Specifically, the retainer letter
         prepared by the respondent and executed by Williams
         stated that ‘‘[t]his agreement contemplates that Attor-
         ney Miller will provide legal services at the Appellate
         Court level.’’ [Petitioner’s Ex. 9]. This language was
         placed in the agreement despite the express order of
         the Appellate Court which provided that ‘‘Attorney Jose-
         phine Smalls Miller is suspended from practice before
         this court in all cases’’ and further provided that ‘‘[a]fter
         June 9, 2015, Attorney Josephine Smalls Miller may not
         represent any client before this court until she files a
         motion for reinstatement and that motion has been
         granted.’’11 [Petitioner’s Ex. 1].
           The court finds that the petitioner has established by
         clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has
         violated rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
            11
               On February 15, 2018, the Appellate Court issued an order clarifying its
         order of December 9, 2014, by stating that the original order precluded
         ‘‘Attorney [Josephine] Smalls Miller from providing legal services of any
         kind in connection with any Connecticut Appellate Court matter until she
         files a motion for reinstatement and that motion has been granted.’’ At the
         presentment hearing, the respondent acknowledged that this order did clar-
         ify the original order. However, the latter order is not necessary for a finding
         of a violation of rule 5.5, or any other rule, as the facts are sufficient to
         establish a violation of the rules based on the language of the original order
         alone. [Petitioner’s Ex. 2].
Page 62                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                           November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text