Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text

1,901 chars
At the presentment hearing, the respondent testified
         that at a court hearing before Judge Bellis, she saw at
         least four judges standing there (in or around the court-
         room) ‘‘obviously waiting to see what was happening’’
         and then immediately going in to talk to Judge Bellis
         ‘‘about what had occurred.’’ [Tr. 4 110:3–12, Miller]. When
         questioned by this court as to whether a remedy ‘‘would
         be to bring a complaint against Judge Bellis before the
         Judicial Review Council,’’ the respondent replied, ‘‘I
         think we all know that hardly anybody who was ever
         brought before that Counsel [sic] gets any kind of relief.
         Or, rather, I should say, any—judges who are brought
         before that Counsel [sic], nothin[g] ever happens.’’ [Tr.
         3 94:7–10, Miller]. In another matter, the respondent tes-
         tified that she argued an objection to a motion to dismiss
         her claim. During the argument, Judge Bellis asked oppos-
         ing counsel why she had waited almost a year to file the
         motion to dismiss. The respondent confronted Judge
         Bellis about the reason for her question and testified
         that the judge did not respond. As a result, the respon-
         dent sought and obtained a transcript of the proceeding
         but testified that ‘‘all reference to this matter had been
         removed from the hearing transcript.’’ [Tr. 3 121:4–8,
         Miller]. Her testimony unabashedly implied that the
         judge had pressured a court monitor or conspired with
         the monitor to manipulate an official court recording.
         The court does not find her testimony as to these mat-
         ters credible, and she submitted no other evidence cor-
Page 74                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         November 3, 2020