STATEWIDEGRIEVANCECOMMITTEE
MarieAdams
ompl in nt
vs.JosephMonizRespondentGrievanceComplaint 09-0673DECISIONPursuanttoPracticeBook§2-35,theundersigned,duly-appointedreviewingcommittee
of
theStatewideGrievanceCommittee,conductedahearingattheSuperiorCourt,80WashingtonStreet,Hartford,ConnecticutonApril8,2010.Thehearingaddressedtherecord
of
thecomplaintfiledonJuly
27;
2009,andtheprobablecausedeterminationfiledbytheHartfordJudicialDistrictGrievancePanelforGeographicalArea
andthetown
of
Hartford
on
October27,2009,fmdingthatthereexistedprobablecausethattheRespondentviolatedRules1.3,1.4,1.5and8.1
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConductandPracticeBook§227(a)(I).ThismatterwasoriginallyscheduledforhearingsonJanuary14,2010andFebruary11,2010,butwerecontinuedattherequest
of
DisciplinaryCounselandtheRespondent,respectively.ThematterwasthereafterscheduledforahearingonApril8,2010.Notice
of
theApril8,2010hearingwasmailedtotheComplainant,totheRespondentandtotheOffice
of
theChiefDisciplinaryCounselonMarch2,2009.PursuanttoPracticeBook§2-35(d),AssistantDisciplinaryCounselSuzanneSuttonpursuedthematterbeforethisreviewingcommittee.TheComplainantappearedatthehearingandtestified.TheRespondentdidnotappearatthehearing.Atthehearing,thisreviewingcommitteenotifiedthepartiesthatthegrievancepanel sfindingregardingPracticeBook§2-27(a)(l)appearedtobeatypographicalerrorsinceSection2-27(a)doesnotcontainasubsection(1).Furthermore,thelanguagereferencestheRespondent sfailuretoanswerthegrievancecomplaint,whichimplicatesaviolation
of
PracticeBook§2-32(a)(1).Accordingly,thepartieswereadvisedthatourreview
of
theRespondent sfailuretorespondtothegrievancecomplaintwouldbeanalyzedunderPracticeBook§2-32(a)(1).Thisreviewingcommitteefindsthefollowingfactsbyclearandconvincingevidence:TheComplainantretainedtheRespondentonOctober10,2008
to
obtainfivedocumentsonherbehalf,whichsheneededbyNovember
5 2008
foranon-linestoryshewaswritingforpublicationonNovember7,2008.ThedocumentsconcernedanincidentthatoccurredonOctober7,2008.Thedocumentsincluded:acopy
of
aHartforddispatchcentertape,acopy
of
areportfromthefiredepartment,acopy
of
areportfromAMRambulance
GrievanceComplaint 09-0673DecisionPage2service,acopy
of
asecuritytapefromCarabettaManagementandamedicalreportfrom
t
FrancisHospital.TheComplainantpaidtheRespondent 500toobtainthesedocuments.TheRespondentdidnotprovidetheComplainantwithawrittenfeeagreement.TheRespondentsubsequentlyadvisedtheComplainantthat
he
couldnotobtainthemedicalrecords.TheRespondentneverprovidedtheComplainantwiththeremainingdocuments.FollowingtheNovember7thdeadline,theComplainantcalledtheRespondent'sofficealmosteveryweekrequestingthestatu
of
obtainingtheremainingdocuments.TheRespondentadvisedtheComplainantthathehadfaxedtheremainingfourdocumentstoher.TheComplainant,however,neverreceivedthefaxandtheRespondentfailedtoprovidetheComplainantwithproofthatthefaxhaflbeensent.FromNovember2008toJuly2009,theComplainantcalledandemailedtheRespondentrequestingthestatus
of
thematter.TheRespondenteitherfailedtorespondtotheComplainant's.communications
or
advisedtheComplainantthathewasinameetingandwouldreturnhercallatalatertime.TheRespondenteventuallyagreedtoprovidetheComplainantwitharefund
of
herretainer,butneverdid.TheComplainantsubsequentlyfiledthisgrievancecomplaintagainsttheRespondentonJuly27,2009.
On
July31,2009,acopy
of
thegrievancecomplaintwassentbycertifiedmail
to
theRespondentatthelastofficeaddressregisteredwiththeStatewideGrievll\lceCommittee.TheRespondentwasadvised
of
hisdutyunderPracticeBook§2-32(a)(l)torespondtothegrievancecomplaintwithinthirtydays
ThedeliveryreceiptreflectsthattheRespondentsignedfortheletteronSeptember
2009.TheRespondentdidnotfIleawrittenresponsetothegrievancecomplaintasdirected.ThisreviewingcQmmitteealsoconsideredthefollowing:DisciplinaryCounselrequestedthatthisreviewingcommitteeorderapresentmentandaddafindingthattheRespondentengagedintheunauthorizedpractice
of
lawinviolation
of
Rule5.5
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.DisciplinaryCounselmaintainedthat.theComplainantsentemailstotheRespondentandtelephonedtheRespondentfollowingtheRespondent'ssuspensionfromthepractice
oflaw
onFebruary19,2009.ThisreviewingcommitteeconcludesbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheRespondentengagedinunethicalconduct.Therecordbefore
thi
reviewingcommitteereflectsthattheRespondentagreedtoobtaincertaindocumentsonbehalf
of
theComplainantthatsherequiredinordertowriteanon-linestory.Furthermore,theRespondentundertooktherepresentationknowingthatthematterwastime-sensitiveandthatthedocumentswereneededinapproximatelyonemonth'stime.TheRespondent,however,failedtoprovidetheComplainantwithany
of
thedocuments,evenaftertherequesteddeadlinehadpassed.AlthoughtheRespondentadvisedtheComplainantthathehadfaxedthedocumentstoher,theComplainantneverreceivedthefaxandtheRespondentneverprovidedproofthatthefaxhadbeensent.Furthermore,theRespondentneverresentthedocumentstotheComplainant.
We
GrievanceComplaint 09-0673DecisionPage3fwdtheRespondent'sfailuretoprovide
L ie
Complainant
with
any
of
therequesteddocumentsconstitutesa
lack
of
diligenceinviolation
of
Rule1.3
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.TherecordalsosupportsafindingbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheRespondentfailedtokeeptheComplainantreasonablyinformedregardingthestatus
of
thematterandfailedtocomplywiththeComplainant'sreasonablerequestsforinformation.TheComplainantmadenumeroustelephonecallstotheRespondent'sofficeandsentseveralemails
totheRespondentregardingthestatus
of
thematter.TheRespondenteitherfailedtorespondtotheComplainant'scommunications
or
advisedtheComplainantthathewouldreturnhercallatalatertime.WeconcludethattheRespondent'sfailuretorespondtotheComplainant'sinquiriesviolatesRule' A(a)(3)and
4
of
theRules
of
Professional
C<;mduct.
ThisreviewingcommitteefurtherconcludesbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheRespondent's$500retainerfeewasuureasonableinviolation
of
RuleI.5(a)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.TherecordreflectsthattheRespondentneverobtained
any
of
thedocumentshewasretainedtoprovide.
addition,therecordisdevoid
of
any.evidencetoindicatethattheRespondentevenattemptedtoobtainthesedocuments.Thisreviewingcommitteealsoconcludes
that
theRespondent'sfailuretosubmitawrittenresponsetothegrievancecomplaintconstitutesaviolationofRule8.1(2)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConductandPracticeBook§2-32(a)(I).
additiontotheRulescitedbythegrievancepanel,thisreviewing
committ<;e
concludesbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheRespondentfailedtoprovidetheComplainantwithawrittenretaineragreementinviolation
of
Rule1.5(b)
of
theRules.
of
ProfessionalConduct.Wewereunabletoconclude,
as
DisciplinaryCounselrequested,thattherecordalsosupportedafinding
of
theadditionalchargethattheRespondentviolatedRule5.5
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.AlthoughtheComplainantsentcorrespondencetotheRespondentfollowinghissuspensionfromthepractice
oflaw
therecorddoes
not
indicatethattheRespondentrespondedtothesecominunications.·ThisreviewingcommitteeconcludesthattheRespondent'sviolations
of
Rules
1 3
1.4(a)(3)and(4),1.5(a)and8.1(2)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConductandPracticeBook§232(a)(I)warrantapresentment.Accordingly,wedirectDisciplinaryCounseltofileapresentmentagainsttheRespondentintheSuperiorCourt·fortheimposition
of
whateverdisciplinethecourtmaydeemappropriate.Sincethepresentmentwillbeatrialdenovo,wefurtherdirectDisciplinaryCounseltoincludetheadditionalviolation
of
Rule1.5(b)foundbythisreviewingcommittee.
(3)
asc
DECISIONDATE:
_ lQll< lll1~I\j_
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
