No Standing To Appeal Dismissed Bar Complaints

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus action brought to compel prosecution of bar complaints

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that they were statutorily and classically aggrieved by certain decisions of those local panels dismissing their grievance complaints against five of those attorneys, and by certain other actions of the Statewide Grievance Committee with respect to the proceedings against the other two. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the present action for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs retained one law firm to pursue a medical malpractice case and a second firm to assist with taxes and investment of the proceeds.

In January, 2012, after a jury had awarded the plaintiffs a verdict of $58.6 million, the plaintiffs ultimately settled their medical malpractice case for $25 million. In February, 2012, while still represented by the Koskoff firm, the plaintiffs retained the law firm of Day Pitney, LLP (Day Pitney), to advise them on numerous financial and tax issues related to the settlement.

They complained about both sets of attorneys

In February, 2015, the plaintiffs filed grievance complaints against five attorneys from the Koskoff firm and two attorneys from Day Pitney, alleging that those attorneys had committed numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct while representing them, in particular the misappropriation of client funds.

 The bar complaints against five attorneys were dismissed; two were reprimanded.

Notably

Throughout these proceedings, the Statewide Grievance Committee denied the plaintiffs’ attempts to supplement the record, and the chief disciplinary counsel refused their requests to submit certain evidence unfavorable to the Koskoff firm attorneys.

Here the court affirms the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this mandamus action.

The trial court

The court is keenly aware of the plaintiffs’ frustration with and disappointment in the handling, if not the outcome, of the grievance proceedings. The facts and circumstances outlined in the complaint, if true, are deplorable. But these proceedings are not marked by ‘‘egregious and otherwise irreparable violations of state and federal constitutional guarantees.’’ Mere disagreement with how the grievance process has been handled, standing alone, does not provide appropriate justification for this court to supplant or usurp the established disciplinary process.

CTPost reported on the disposition of the bar grievances.

If there is a credible suggestion that well-connected attorneys got kid glove treatment at the hands of the Bar, it is unfortunate that standing rules prevent the court from addressing the well-pleaded concerns.

As noted in the Preamble to the ABA Model Rules

 The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.

The time for a serious conversation about attorney discipline with an eye toward major systemic change is long overdue. A significant problem with having that conversation is the high level of lawyer satisfaction with the status quo. (Mike Frisch)