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

2,450 chars

late rules); Willis v. Community Health Services, Inc.,
         Docket No. AC 36955 (respondent failed to respond to
         a July 31, 2014 order nisi informing her that the appeal
         would be dismissed if, by August 11, 2014, she did not
         file a certificate indicating the estimated date of delivery
         of the transcript pursuant to Practice Book § 63-8 (b);
         also failed to appear at a previously scheduled hearing
         and falsely certified that certain documents had been
         sent to opposing counsel); Cimmino v. Marcoccia,
         Docket No. AC 35944 (respondent failed to meet dead-
         lines and to comply with the rules of appellate proce-
         dure and court orders); Coble v. Board of Education,
         Docket No. AC 36677 (dismissed as frivolous). [Respon-
         dent’s Ex. T]. At the trial level, Coble had been non-
         suited for failing to prosecute the action. [Respondent’s
         Ex. B]. This court takes judicial notice that following
         the nonsuit, the action was refiled under the accidental
         failure of suit statute. The trial court subsequently
         entered a summary judgment against the plaintiff, and
         the court supplemented its decision with a special find-
         ing pursuant to General Statutes § 52-226a that the
         refiled action was meritless and not brought in good
         faith. [See Judge Gilardi’s order #127.20 in the matter
         of Coble v. Board of Education, Superior Court, judicial
         district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S]. Addi-
         tionally, during the course of this presentment, the
         respondent herself referenced Igidi v. Dept. of Correc-
         tion (dismissed for failure to timely respond to discov-
         ery). [Tr. 4 109:6–15, Miller]. Even in Miller v. Board of
         Education, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield,
         Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, where the respondent
         prosecuted her own action for the collection of attor-
         ney’s fees, the matter was dismissed for her failure to
         appear at trial on July 10, 2012. [Respondent’s Ex. D].
         In Smith v. Dept. of Correction, United States District
         Court, Docket No. 3:13-CV-00828 (VLB) (D. Conn.
         August 4, 2014), the respondent sought attorney’s fees
Page 72                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text