Satan In Connecticut
In two matters involving the same attorney (both related to his failed marriage), the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee authorized filing a presentment for the imposition of appropriate discipline
One matter was initiated by the attorney’s estranged spouse and involved his effort to implead her parents in the divorce and accuse her mother of sexual abuse
Throughout the proceedings, the Respondent has sent a voluminous amount of emails to the Complainant and her parents. In these emails, the Respondent demands that the Complainant and her attorney not speak to the Complainant’s parents or to members of the Complainant’s church because such discussions would constitute a conflict of interest and obstruction of justice. The Respondent also directed the Complainant and her counsel not to communicate to each other in writing. After he filed the motion to implead the Complainant’s parents, the Respondent sent them an email stating that they had a conflict of interest and could be criminally liable for obstruction of justice if they spoke with the Complainant or Attorney Burt about the case.
The Respondent also sent numerous emails to the Complainant, her parents, her therapist and her pastor citing Bible passages and maintaining that it was God’s will that they remain together and that Satan had gotten between them. In these emails, he accuses the Complainant’s parents of racism and continues to refer to the sexual abuse allegation against the Complainant’s mother. In a January 26, 2017 email to the Complainant’s pastor, the Respondent states the following: “Now you can be aware of the confidential evidence of sexual abuse.”
Findings
This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in misconduct. We find that the motion to implead the Complainant’s parents as third party defendants filed by the Respondent and the disparaging and hostile emails sent to the Complainant, her parents and third parties violated Rules 4.4 and 8.4( 4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We are especially concerned with the Respondent’s repeated reference to the sexual abuse allegations in this motion and these emails a year after the allegations had been found to be unsubstantiated. We were equally concerned with the allegations made by the Respondent that the Complainant’s parents were racist and that they had kidnapped the Complainant and her children. These unsubstantiated allegations, made in motions and sent to third parties in emails, had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden the Complainant and her parents and were prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rules 4.4(a) and 8.4( 4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We conclude that the Respondent further violated Rule 4.4(a) ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct by providing the Complainant’s cell phone number to strangers and Rule 8.4( 4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by communicating with the Complainant in violation of the protective orders and while she was represented by counsel.
The second matter involved a complaint from the estranged wife’s therapist
The Complainant is a marriage and family therapist who has been treating the Respondent’s estranged wife, Amanda, throughout their separation and divorce proceedings. On July 10,2017, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant maintaining that the Complainant’s treatment of Amanda had been tainted by the Complainant’s discussions with Amanda’s parents. The Respondent accused Amanda’s parents of blatant racism and hate towards him. The Respondent further maintained that the Complainant’s perception and accusations against the Respondent were not well founded and had been contrived by Amanda’s parents. The Respondent contended that the Complainant’s actions were done at the expense of the Respondent’s children. The Responded urged the Complainant to meet with him to discuss how Amanda and the Respondent could remain friends. The Respondent sent a second email to the Complainant on July 12, 2017, accusing Amanda’s parents of contempt for the Respondent and his marriage. He further accused Amanda’s parents of keeping him from Amanda and his children.
Findings
We are unable to find clear and convincing evidence in the record to conclude that the conduct of the Respondent in this instance rose to the level of a violation of Rules 4.4 and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We could not conclude that these two emails had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden the Complainant or that they were prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, we conclude that the Respondent’s failure to answer the grievance complaint and appear at this hearing warrants a presentment.
(Mike Frisch)