STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Darrell Q. Atkinson, Complainant vs. Robert C. McCoy, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #00-0998

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 February 13, 2002.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 7, 2001, and the probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on December 21, 2001, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The reviewing committee’s probable cause determination was contrary to the determination of no probable cause filed by the New London Judicial District Grievance Panel on November 5, 2001.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on January 2, 2002. Both the Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified at the hearing.  An exhibit was admitted into evidence.

This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

The Respondent represented the Complainant on a habeas corpus petition, which was tried to the court, Meadow, J., in or around July of 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties were ordered by Judge Meadow to submit post-trial memorandums. A post-trial memorandum was submitted by the State’s Attorney Office, but the Respondent did not prepare the memorandum as ordered by the court.  The Respondent’s failure to file a post-trial memorandum was mentioned in the court’s Memorandum of Decision dated September 16, 1999.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that he considered the filing of the memorandum optional and that he believed he had no non-frivolous issues to discuss in the memorandum so he did not file one.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent’s failure to file a post-trial memorandum ordered by the court violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Obviously, Judge Meadow thought that a post-trial memorandum would aid the court in resolving the issues presented by the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the Complainant.  The Respondent’s failure to file the memorandum ordered by the court reflected a lack of diligence in violation of Rule 1.3 and was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, we reprimand the Respondent for violating Rules 1.3 and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

___________________________________
Attorney Raymond B. Rubens

___________________________________
Attorney Rita Steinberger

___________________________________
Mr. Thomas McKiernan