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

1,852 chars
The respondent shall comply with all terms and con-
          ditions of Practice Book § 2-47B, Restrictions on the
          Activities of Deactivated Attorneys.
            The respondent shall comply with all terms and con-
          ditions of Practice Book § 2-53 in the event that she
          applies for reinstatement to the Connecticut bar follow-
          ing her period of suspension.
            Prior to reinstatement in Connecticut, the respondent
          must satisfy any Connecticut bar requirements and must
          be otherwise in good standing.
             As a condition of reinstatement to the bar, the respon-
          dent must agree that upon reinstatement she will be men-
          tored for a period of one year by a practicing attorney
          with at least ten years of experience in the Connecticut
          bar. Such mentor shall be a member of the Connecticut
          Bar Association, be in good standing, have no disciplin-
          ary history and shall acknowledge in writing their will-
          ingness to so act. The mentor’s appointment shall be
          effective only upon the approval of this court and shall
          be made by separate motion by the respondent.
             The respondent shall, as a condition of reinstatement,
          attend a Connecticut Bar Association approved continu-
          ing legal education course in both legal ethics and law
          office management. Such courses must be attended in
          person and not online. Written proof of the attendance
          shall be required as a condition of reinstatement.
            Any relief from suspension relative to her practice
          before the Appellate Court must be made separately to
          the Appellate Court consistent with its orders of Decem-
          ber 9, 2014, and February 15, 2018.16