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

2,373 chars

of the gift from Ms. I Am into the IOLTA account—that
         she was acting peculiarly—was not reasonable under
         the circumstances. Nor was the respondent’s delay in
         responding to the petitioner’s request for documenta-
         tion explained by any sort of mental impairment or
         other valid reason. A breach of this duty to comply with
         the rules of the profession and to comply with requests
         from disciplinary authorities reflects adversely on the
         profession as a whole and not just on the one attorney.
         The duties to her clients in counts two, three and four
         all stem from her obligation, individually and as an
         officer of the court, to abide by the rules and orders
         of the court and to not engage in any misconduct. By
         acting in disregard of court orders and failing to dili-
         gently attend to her cases, the respondent has engaged
         in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration
         of justice. Further, she failed to meet her duty to com-
         municate with her client about the matter for which
         she was retained.
           With respect to her mental state as to all counts, the
         court does not find any impairment that would have
         prevented the respondent from acting appropriately or
         consistently with her obligations under both the Rules
         of Professional Conduct and the rules of practice,
         including orders issued by the court.
            While no financial harm came to her clients as a
         result of the deposit of the respondent’s personal funds
         into the IOLTA account as described in count one, there
         were potentially serious financial consequences to those
         of her clients whose actions and/or claims were dis-
         missed by different courts without a hearing on the mer-
         its as a result of her failure to comply with the Rules
         of Professional Conduct or court orders as described
         in count two. Both of her clients in the Stone matter
         (employment discrimination claim) and the Meszaros
         matter (motor vehicle personal injury claim) had their
         actions/claims dismissed. Neither dismissal was appealed
Page 70                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text