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

2,459 chars

appropriate.’’ The trial court possesses a great deal of
         discretion in this regard. Statewide Grievance Commit-
         tee v. Timbers, 70 Conn. App. 1, 3, 796 A.2d 565, cert.
         denied, 261 Conn. 908, 804 A.2d 214 (2002), cert. denied,
         537 U.S. 1192, 123 S. Ct. 1274, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1027 (2003).
         As was noted above, in determining whether any disci-
         pline should be imposed, discipline or sanctions are
         not intended to punish an attorney but, rather, to safe-
         guard the courts and the public from the misconduct
         or unfitness of those who are licensed to perform the
         important functions of the legal profession. Additional
         facts will be set forth below as necessary to address
         the issue of what discipline is to be imposed.
            Reviews of misconduct are often guided by the use
         of the American Bar Association’s Standards for Impos-
         ing Lawyer Sanctions (Standards), which have been
         approved by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Burton v.
         Mottolese, supra, 267 Conn. 55 and n.50. The Standards
         provide that, after a finding of misconduct, a court
         should consider: ‘‘(1) the nature of the duty violated;
         (2) the attorney’s mental state; (3) the potential or actual
         injury stemming from the attorney’s misconduct; and
         (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.’’
         [Id., 55; see A.B.A., Standards for Imposing Lawyer
         Sanctions (1986) standard 3.0, p. 25]. The Standards list
         the following as aggravating factors: ‘‘(a) prior disciplin-
         ary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pat-
         tern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith
         obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intention-
         ally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disci-
         plinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false
         statements, or other deceptive practices during the dis-
         ciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful
         nature of conduct; (h) vulnerability of victim; (i) sub-
         stantial experience in the practice of law; (j) indiffer-
         ence to making restitution [and] (k) illegal conduct,
         including that involving the use of controlled sub-
Page 68                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text