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

2,332 chars

The plaintiff, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, filed a presentment
    alleging numerous incidents of misconduct by the defendant attorney,
    including violations of certain provisions of the Rules of Professional
    Conduct. The defendant raised two affirmative defenses, claiming that
    the recommendations of the chief disciplinary counsel and the decisions
    of the Statewide Grievance Committee concerning her alleged miscon-
    duct violated her constitutional rights because they were based on
    racially discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. The trial court rendered
    judgment suspending the defendant from the practice of law for one
    year, from which the defendant appealed. On appeal, the defendant
    claimed that the trial court’s denial of her motion for articulation and
    the Appellate Court’s refusal to order an articulation violated her due
    process rights, and that the trial court incorrectly concluded that she
    engaged in misconduct sufficient to warrant discipline and that her
    claims of racial discrimination and retaliation were not properly raised
    in the presentment hearing. Held:
1. The defendant’s due process rights were not violated as a result of the
    trial court’s denial of her motion for articulation or the Appellate Court’s
    refusal to order an articulation; the trial court’s memorandum of decision
    comprehensively set forth the factual and legal bases for the court’s
    conclusions, and there was no ambiguity or deficiency in the memoran-
    dum of decision that would require articulation or prevent this court
    from reviewing the defendant’s claims on appeal.
2. This court concluded, on the basis of its examination of the record
    and briefs, and its consideration of the parties’ arguments, that the
    defendant’s remaining claims, namely, that the trial court incorrectly
    concluded that she engaged in misconduct and that her claims of racial
    discrimination and retaliation were not properly raised in the present-
    ment hearing, were resolved properly in the trial court’s thorough and
    well reasoned memorandum of decision, which this court adopted as
    a proper statement of the applicable law concerning those issues.
          Argued January 23—officially released April 27, 2020* Procedural History

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text