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

2,700 chars

by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law as
          defined in Practice Book § 2-44A.
                                                 IV
             THE RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
             The respondent has raised two amended affirmative
          defenses to the allegations of the amended present-
          ment complaint. Specifically, the respondent contends
          that the recommendations of the petitioner and/or the
          decisions of the SGC were based upon both racially dis-
          criminatory and retaliatory reasons in violation of the
          respondent’s constitutional rights under the fourteenth
          amendment to the United States constitution and article
          first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution.
             Special defenses are appropriate in a disciplinary hear-
          ing. See Statewide Grievance Committee v. Presnick,
          216 Conn. 135, 139, 577 A.2d 1058 (1990) (‘‘[d]espite its
          sui generis character, we see no reason why a present-
          ment should proceed in a piecemeal fashion and why
          basic concepts of res judicata are not equally applica-
          ble to presentment proceedings’’). The respondent’s
          attempt to raise these special defenses, however, is
          unavailing. While this is not a regular civil proceeding,
          a review of Practice Book § 10-50 would be instructive
          in this regard. The purpose of a special defense is to
          set forth facts that ‘‘show that the [petitioner’s] state-
          ments of fact are untrue.’’ It can also be used to set
          forth facts that are consistent with such statements but
          show nonetheless that the petitioner has no cause of
          action.12 The respondent’s special defenses fail to do
            12
               Practice Book § 10-50 provides: ‘‘No facts may be proved under either
          a general or special denial except such as show that the plaintiff’s statements
          of fact are untrue. Facts which are consistent with such statements but
          show, notwithstanding, that the plaintiff has no cause of action, must be
          specially alleged. Thus, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award,
          duress, fraud, illegality not apparent on the face of the pleadings, infancy, that
          the defendant was non compos mentis, payment (even though nonpayment
          is alleged by the plaintiff), release, the statute of limitations and res judicata
          must be specially pleaded, while advantage may be taken, under a simple
November 3, 2020               CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 63

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text