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

2,472 chars

to the Appellate Court. With respect to counts three and
          four, the respondent’s actions in representing Williams
          relative to the appeal of the judgment terminating her
          parental rights resulted in a financial loss to Williams
          through her payment of a retainer and any other fees
          to the respondent that she was not rightfully entitled
          to earn due to the suspension she was actively under.
          The respondent’s actions were done intentionally and
          in direct contravention of a valid court order.
             In reviewing the alleged misconduct under the ABA
          Standards, the court can also consider any aggravating
          and mitigating factors that are relevant to the respon-
          dent’s actions. There are several relevant aggravating
          factors. First, the court looks to see if there is any his-
          tory of prior disciplinary actions. The respondent received
          a reprimand in 2015 based on a violation of rule 11 of
          the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Miller v. Board
          of Education, United States District Court, Docket No.
          3:12-CV-01287 (JAM) (D. Conn. July 30, 2014). There
          the court found that as to the complaint filed by the
          respondent, no objectively reasonable attorney could
          have made the allegations, in the complaint, without
          knowing that they were verifiably false. [Id.; see also
          Tr. 1 92:12–14, Ingraham]. There is, of course, also the
          ongoing suspension by our Appellate Court.
            A pattern of misconduct may also be considered as
          an aggravating factor. Evidence was presented at the
          hearing that the respondent has been involved in eleven
          cases where her client’s action or claim has been dis-
          missed directly as a result of the respondent’s conduct.
          Some include the dismissal of the Stone and the Mesz-
          aros matters set forth above. Also, in Miller v. Appellate
          Court, 320 Conn. 759, 761, 770, 136 A.3d 1198 (2016), our
          Supreme Court identified the dismissal by the Appellate
          Court of the following cases: Addo v. Rattray, Docket
          No. AC 36837 (respondent failed to timely file the appel-
          lant’s brief and appendix in compliance with the appel-
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 71

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text