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

2,457 chars

stances.’’ A.B.A., Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanc-
          tions (2001) standard 9.22, pp. 354–55; see also Burton
          v. Mottolese, supra, 55.
             The Standards also list the following as mitigating
          factors which are to be considered: ‘‘(a) absence of a
          prior disciplinary record; (b) absence of a dishonest or
          selfish motive; (c) personal or emotional problems; (d)
          timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
          consequences of misconduct; (e) full and free disclosure
          to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward pro-
          ceedings; (f) inexperience in the practice of law; (g)
          character or reputation; (h) physical disability; (i) men-
          tal disability or chemical dependency including alco-
          holism or drug abuse when: (1) there is medical evi-
          dence that the respondent is affected by a chemical
          dependency or mental disability; (2) the chemical depen-
          dency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (3)
          the respondent’s recovery from the chemical depen-
          dency or mental disability is demonstrated by a mean-
          ingful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation;
          and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recur-
          rence of that misconduct is unlikely . . . (j) delay in
          disciplinary proceedings . . . (l) imposition of other
          penalties or sanctions; (m) remorse; [and] (n) remote-
          ness of prior offenses.’’ A.B.A., Standards for Imposing
          Lawyer Sanctions (2001) standard 9.32, pp. 355–56; see
          also Burton v. Mottolese, supra, 267 Conn. 55–56.
             With these standards in mind, the court must first
          consider the nature of the duties violated by the respon-
          dent. As to count one, the respondent’s maintenance
          of an IOLTA account placed upon her a duty to hold her
          clients’ funds with the care required of a professional
          fiduciary. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, commen-
          tary. By depositing the respondent’s personal funds into
          the IOLTA account, she violated a duty owed to her
          clients and to the legal profession to keep client funds
          separate from her own. The reason given for the deposit
November 3, 2020         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 69

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text