Reprimand Sustained

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of an attorney’s appeal of a public reprimand for a violation of Rule 8.2(a).

The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly dismissed his appeal because (1) the reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee (reviewing committee) applied the wrong test for determining whether he made statements knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, (2) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that his statements violated rule 8.2 (a), and (3) the committee abused its discretion by reprimanding the plaintiff. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.

Plaintiff was the successor attorney in a wrongful death case that had led to a significant settlement

[Prior counsel] Mahoney requested hearings before the Probate Court to determine how the attorney’s fees in connection with the Progressive and Liberty Mutual settlements should be split between himself and the plaintiff, and the court ordered a hearing regarding whether and how the fee for the Liberty Mutual settlement should be split. The plaintiff appealed the order scheduling a hearing on this issue to the Superior Court, but the Probate Court proceeded with the scheduled hearing while the appeal was pending. Following the hearing, which the plaintiff did not attend, the Probate Court ordered him to pay Mahoney $40,000 of the $66,666.66 in attorney’s fees he had received and was holding for the estate as part of the Liberty Mutual settlement proceeds. The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff’s original appeal from the Probate Court’s order scheduling a fee splitting hearing because the challenged hearing already had taken place.

That determination was affirmed after a trial de novo and Mahoney sought a contempt order when he was not paid.

Before Mahoney’s contempt motion was resolved, the plaintiff filed an interpleader action in the Superior Court with respect to the monies he had been ordered to pay to Mahoney. The court, Bellis, J., held settlement conferences with the parties that ultimately resolved the dispute, and the plaintiff filed a motion for an order requesting that the funds be disbursed in accordance with the prior court decision awarding Mahoney $40,000 of the plaintiff’s contingent fee. 

The alleged violation involved statements in the motion

‘‘While the undersigned genuinely appreciates the sincere efforts of this court to bring this matter to a close after years of litigation, the plaintiff is nevertheless completely disillusioned and disappointed with the prior judges who have ‘heard’ this case, and their unwillingness to make any meaningful effort to analyze the facts and the law. Decision after decision was not only legally incorrect, but devoid of any meaningful jurisprudence. The plaintiff has opted to resolve this case solely because it has become apparent that, in this instance, for whatever reason, justice is not possible. In thirty years of practice, I have never seen anything like this, where the rules and the law are simply and totally disregarded.’’ (Emphasis in original.) After receiving this motion, the court, Bellis, J., referred the plaintiff to the committee for investigation.

Violation

In the present case, the reviewing committee, in its memorandum of decision, considered whether the plaintiff had ‘‘an objective, reasonable belief that the assertions were true,’’ and it concluded that he ‘‘intended to attack the judiciary without a basis to do so.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) The trial court, in reviewing the committee’s decision, also found that the plaintiff ‘‘did not sustain his burden of persuasion to provide objective and reasonable proof to support his statements about the judges.’’ The reviewing committee applied the proper objective test, and, therefore, the committee’s decision is not contrary to applicable law…

Clear and convincing evidence supports the committee’s finding that the plaintiff made statements attacking the integrity of the judges of the Probate Court and the Superior Court. Because the committee met its burden, the burden of persuasion shifted to the plaintiff to provide proof of an objective and reasonable basis for his statements. The plaintiff, however, has not met his burden of showing an objective, reasonable basis for believing that the challenged statements were true, and, therefore, the committee properly concluded that the plaintiff’s claims against the court were made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. Accordingly, we conclude that the committee properly found by clear  and convincing evidence that the plaintiff violated rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court also sustained the reprimand sanction. (Mike Frisch)