Lapses Lead To Suspension

The Connecticut Supreme Court has affirmed sanctions imposed on an attorney

This case is before us on a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error, Josephine Smalls Miller, who claims that the Appellate Court abused its discretion in suspending her from the practice of law before that court for a period of six months, in addition to imposing other sanctions, due to her failure to comply with Appellate Court rules and deadlines, and for filing a frivolous appeal. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the writ of error.

The attorney had responded to the Appellate Court’s suggestion that she had failed to properly file a brief

Miller asserted that someone in the Appellate Clerk’s Office must have tampered with the Judicial Branch website (website) to make it appear that she  had not filed them. In her memorandum of law, Miller accused the Appellate Clerk’s Office of ‘‘serious misconduct,’’ stating that, ‘‘[o]bviously, someone has deliberately manipulated [the] electronic website information in order to justify the claim that no filing has been made by [her].’’

A judge explained that the problem involved not failure to file but the absence of required certifications.

Eventually, the appeal was dismissed for a variety of reasons

Opposing counsel argued, however, that there were many other examples of Miller’s failure to diligently prosecute the appeal, including Miller’s failure to appear at a previously scheduled hearing and her act of falsely certifying that certain documents had been sent to opposing counsel. When a judge of the Appellate Court asked Miller, at the show cause hearing, whether, prior to leaving the country, she had made arrangements for another attorney to cover her practice, Miller responded that she had not done so because she did not believe that there was any reason to make such arrangements. When asked what assurance   could provide the court that such lapses would not occur in the future, Miller stated that, because of her limited resources as a solo practitioner, she could assure the court only that she would try to find someone to cover her practice on a pro bono basis if she were to travel again for an extended period of time. Miller also admonished the court that, ‘‘[r]ather than being sanctioned, [she] should be commended’’ for her work because, according to Miller, all of her appellate work  is performed on a pro bono basis. Miller further indicated that the Appellate Court’s treatment of her appeared to be racially motivated and reminded her of
how she was treated in the late 1970s as a court employee in Georgia.

 The court here

we conclude that the Appellate Court did not abuse its discretion in suspending Miller from the practice of law before that court for a period of six months on the basis of her repeated failure to meet deadlines, to comply with the rules of practice, and for filing a frivolous appeal…

Miller’s contention that rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides the exclusive list of misconduct for which an attorney may be sanctioned is patently frivolous. Nor is the present case, as Miller argues, the first in which an attorney has been sanctioned by a Connecticut court for failing to comply with the rules or orders of the court. Indeed, our case law is  replete with examples of instances in which our courts
have exercised their authority, whether inherent or pursuant to statute or the rules of practice, to sanction an attorney for such conduct.

The court also concluded that the matter should be sent to Disciplinary Counsel. (Mike Frisch)