STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Suzanne Edwards, Complainant vs. James A. J. McGee, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #00-0452
Walter J. Adametz, Jr., Complainant vs. James A. J. McGee, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #00-0556
DECISION
Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on October 10, 2001. The hearing addressed the record of the above-referenced complaints, which were both filed on November 29, 2000, and the probable cause determinations filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel in each case on June 27, 2001, finding that in each case, there was probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.4(1), and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). The cases were consolidated at the time of this reviewing committee’s hearing.
Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainants and to the Respondent on August 30, 2001. The Complainants appeared and testified at the hearing. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing although he was subpoenaed to appear by this reviewing committee. Specifically, the Respondent was served with a subpoena to appear in connection with these cases by State Marshal Joseph Passanesi on October 1, 2001.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
The Complainants are the owners of pieces of property whose boundary lines are adjacent to each other. In 1993, Complainant Adametz’s father hired the Respondent to handle a boundary dispute on his behalf. In or around August of 1997, following the death of Complainant Adametz’s father, the Complainant Walter Adametz, Jr. and the Complainant Suzanne Edwards retained the Respondent to continue litigating the boundary dispute and paid him a retainer of $2,000.00. From August of 1997 until August of 2000, the Complainants encountered repeated difficulty communicating with the Respondent in that the Respondent failed to return repeated telephone calls. Additionally, the Complainants grew concerned because the Respondent appeared to have little or no knowledge about how the boundary dispute case was progressing. In August of 2000, the Complainants met with the Respondent to terminate his services. At or around that time, they were presented with a bill for work that was performed prior to the August, 1997 retention. The Respondent made no mention of any prior amounts due at the time he was retained. Additionally, the Respondent never provided the Complainants with a bill for his services and an accounting to support the bill until three years after he was hired. The bill contained several inaccuracies and was inflated. Despite the amount of work detailed in the bill, when the Complainants reviewed their file they discovered that it contained only a transcript pertaining to another case. The Respondent refused to turn over the Complainants’ file to their new attorney.
The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.
This reviewing committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in serious ethical misconduct with regard to the Complainants’ boundary dispute matter. We conclude that the Respondent failed to perform any work on the Complainants’ behalf in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to adequately communicate with his clients by failing to return telephone calls and by failing to inform his clients that he had not performed any work on their file in violation of Rule 1.4(a) and (b). The Respondent’s fee demand and his acceptance of the retainer for which he performed no work violated Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and his failure to turn over the file on his termination and his failure to return the Complainants’ retainer violated Rule 1.16(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We conclude that the Respondent’s bill contained misleading inaccuracies in violation of Rule 8.4(1) and (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We conclude that the Respondent’s failure to appear at our hearing despite being served with a subpoena to compel his attendance at the hearing violated Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Finally, the Respondent’s failure to answer the grievance complaint violated Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).
In light of the seriousness of this misconduct, it is the order of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.
__________________________________
Attorney Raymond B. Rubens
__________________________________
Attorney Rita S. Steinberger
Reverend Meredith Payton