You are on page 1of 6
 
STATEWIDEGRIEVANCECOMMITTEELindsayHawkComplainantvs.JosephMonizRespondentDECISIONGrievanceComplaint 06-1118PursuanttoPracticeBook§2-35,theundersigned,duly-appointedreviewingcommittee
of
theStatewideGrievanceCommittee,conductedhearingsattheSuperiorCourt,OneCourtStreet,Middletown,ConnecticutonJune
14 2007
andJanuary
10 2008
Thehearingsaddressedtherecord
of
thecomplaintfiledonDecember18,2006,andtheprobablecause
 ~termin tion
filedbytheHartfordJudicialDistrictGrievancePanelforGeographicalArea
 
andthetown
of
HartfordonMarch16,2007,fmdingthatthereexistedprobablecausethattheRespondent
~iol te
Rules
4 4
and8.4(3)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.Notices
of
thehearingdatesweremailedtotheComplainant,totheRespondentandtotheOffice
of
theChiefDisciplinaryCounselonMay30,2007andDecember
4
2007,respectively.PursuanttoPracticeBook§2-35(d),AssistantDisciplinaryCounselJeffreyDonahueandPatriciaKingpursuedthematterbeforethisreviewingcommittee.TheComplainantandtheRespondentappearedandtestified.Exhibitswereadmittedintoevidence.Thisreviewingcommitteefindsthefollowingfactsbyclearandconvincingevidence:TheComplainantisinvolvedwithabusinesswhichprovidesaudio/videoservicesforlitigationmatters.TheComplainantwashiredbytheRespondentforthreedifferentlitigationmattersinwhichdisputeshavearisenregardingtheComplainant'sfees.Inthefirstmatter(the Anderson case),theComplainantisowed$100(notincludingclaimedinterest)formakingacopy
of
atapeattheRespondent'srequest
in
March
of
2004.TheRespondentdoesnotdisputeowingthisfee.Theothertwomatters( Dakers and Hymes )involvedtheproduction
of
videotapeddocumentaries.
 
theDakerscase,theComplainantclaimstobeowed$3,200plusinterest,and
in
theHymescase,$8,670.
 
thesetwomatters,thereweredisputesastothespecificservicesrequested,andtheRespondentstatedthatbothbillsaretheresponsibility
of
theclientsonwhosebehalftheserviceswererendered.TheRespondentnotedthatinhisretaineragreement,heincludeslanguagemakingclientsdirectlyresponsibleforexpensesinexcess
of
$100..
 
GrievanceComplaint 06-1118DecisionPage2Attheconclusion
of
theJune14,2007hearingdate,thepartiesweregivenadditionaltimetoprovidedocuments.InearlyAugust
of
2007,theDisciplinaryCounselforwardeddocumentsprovidedby
the
Complainant.TheRespondentdidnotproduceanydocuments,despiterepresentingatthehearingthathewouldprovidecopies
of
invoicesandawrittenstatementfromone
of
theclients.AtthesecondhearingdateonJanuary10,2008,theRespondentstatedthathewasunabletolocateanyadditionaldocumentsandcouldnotreachtheclient.TheRespondentagainacknowledgedresponsibilityforthe 100billintheAndersonmatter,andrepresentedtothereviewingcommitteethathewouldpaythatbillonthatsameday,andprovideacopy
of
thechecktothereviewing
cOIl1lI Jttee
TheRespondentalsoagreedtoprovidethereviewingcommitteewithacopy
of
theretaineragreementintheHymesmatter.As
of
thedate
of
thisdecision,theRespondenthadnotprovidedcopies
of
eitherthecheck
or
theretaineragreement.ThisreviewingcommitteeconcludesbyclearandconvincingevidencethattheRespondentengagedinmisconduct.The 100feeinthe'Andersonmatterwasincurredatthedirectrequest
of
theRespondent,andtheRespondentdoesnotdisputethatitisowed.Yethehasnotpaiditoverthespan
of
almostfouryears,despiteacknowledgingitatboththeJune14,2007andJanuary10,2008hearingdates.Accordingly,
in
incurringthatservicebutfailingtopayforit,theRespondentmademisrepresentationstotheComplainantinviolation
of
Rule8.4(3)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.Thisfurthermoreconstitutedacompletedisregardfortherights
of
athirdperson,theComplainant,bytheRespondentinhisrepresentation
of
hisclientinthatmatter,inviolation
of
Rule4.4(a)
of
theRules
of
ProfessionalConduct.RegardingtheDakersandHymesmatters,thisreviewingcommitteedoesnottakeaposition,asthesemattersaredisputedbytheRespondent,bothastotheamountsowedandtheproperpartyresponsiblefortheirpayment.
 
appearsthattheyshouldberesolvedinanothervenue,suchasacivilcourt.Inconsideringanappropriatesanction,thisreviewingcommitteebelievesthat,althoughtheamountinvolvedissmall,itreflects
a
largerproblemonthepart
of
theRespondent.Inparticular,thisreviewingcommitteeisveryconcernedbytheRespondent'sfailuretoberesponsiveinthismatter.
 t
bothhearingdates,theRespondentrepresentedthathewould
 e
providingadditionaldocumentation,buthefailedto
do
so.Thisisreflective
of
othergrievancecomplaintsinwhichtheRespondentfailedtofileananswerand,inthematter
of
Fosterv.Moniz, 07-0217,whereheneitheranswerednorappearedandwasorderedpresented.Accordingly,thisreviewingcommitteedirectstheDisciplinaryCounseltobringapresentmentagainsttheRespondentinSuperiorCourt,fortheimposition
of
whateverdisciplinethecourtdeemsappropriate.Sinceapresentmentisatrialdenovo,thisreviewingcommitteefurtherdirectstheDisciplinaryCounseltoincludeachargethattheRespondentengagedinconductprejudicialtotheadministration
of
justice,inviolation
of
Rule8.4(4)
of
theRules
of
 
GrievanceComplaint 06-1118DecisionPage3ProfessionalConduct,duetohisfailuretocomplywithhisrepresentationstothisreviewingcommittee,especiallyregardinghisfailuretopaythe 100fee
on
theday
o
thesecondhearingdate,ashehadstated
h
would.
(8)
ascDECISIONDATE:

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505