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

2,188 chars

for her representation of the plaintiff, but the matter
          was dismissed. [Tr. 4 107:6–8, Miller]. In that case that
          court stated: ‘‘On August 4, 2014, the defense filed a
          partial motion for summary judgment, and the Court
          entered an order dismissing the specious claim for mon-
          etary damages from a defendant sued in their official
          capacity.
            ‘‘Such a claim is well-known to be barred by the Elev-
          enth Amendment, and the court has, I believe, issued
          decisions on cases filed by Attorney Miller previously
          noting that well-settled law.
            ‘‘Why the plaintiff persists in filing such specious
          claims to which the defense has to respond and the
          Court has to waste its time reiterating well-settled law
          that such a claim is barred is beyond the Court’s com-
          prehension.’’
            [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, referencing exhibit E; transcript
          pages 4–5].
            As to the aggravating factor of multiple offenses,
          there have been findings of probable cause by the appro-
          priate grievance panels as to each count which have
          led to the respondent’s presentment. Each count alleges
          different violations of the Rules of Professional Con-
          duct, and the court has found clear and convincing
          evidence as to the violation of nine different rules.
             Another relevant aggravating factor is the refusal to
          acknowledge the wrongful nature of one’s conduct. The
          respondent, throughout the presentment process, has
          not acknowledged any wrongful conduct and has taken
          no steps to address the issues that led to her suspension
          by the Appellate Court despite being given a clear road-
          map by that court on how to do so. To this factor, the
          court must recite additional facts. From her testimony,
          it is clear that the respondent sees herself as a victim
          of conspiracies by both individual judges as well as
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 73

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text