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

2,390 chars

She has worked as counsel for private corporations.
         She is not a newcomer to the practice of law and in
         fact has substantial litigation and appellate experience.
         In this respect, the respondent presented evidence in
         the form of her resume; Respondent’s Exhibit K; and
         a court ruling in the matter of Gaul v. New Haven,
         United States District Court, Docket No. 3:14-CV-00558
         (D. Conn. May 12, 2016), relative to her motion for
         attorney’s fees in which Judge Meyer found her to be
         ‘‘a highly capable and skilled trial attorney, and that
         those skills were indispensable to the success of her
         client in this case . . . .’’ [Respondent’s Ex. L]. How-
         ever, he also noted in that same ruling that the court
         had ‘‘been previously critical of the conduct of [the
         respondent] in a different case, see Miller v. Board of
         Education . . . .’’ [Id.] From such experience one
         would normally expect a practitioner to have acquired
         a well-versed knowledge of the Rules of Professional
         Conduct, and as a practical matter, a basic understand-
         ing of courtroom process, demeanor and the profes-
         sional expectations that go with it.
            The only relevant mitigating factor the court can mine
         from the testimony presented at the hearing is the physi-
         cal illness the respondent described she experienced
         around September, 2014, which she claims prevented
         her from attending court proceedings before Judge
         Bellis and in the federal court. Even that testimony and
         evidence were called into question by virtue of the
         respondent’s conduct in filing other pleadings in other
         cases that same day after advising the court that she
         was too ill to appear in court. It was also exposed as
         misleading and inaccurate through her questioning by
         Judge Bryant. Though there was some credible evi-
         dence presented to demonstrate that she may have had
         undiagnosed medical issues at the time of the events
         that led to the presentment with respect to the Meszaros
         matter; Respondent’s Exhibit M; it does not appear that
Page 76                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text