STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Ansonia-Milford Judicial District Grievance Panel, Complainant v. Joseph Ragozzine,  Respondent  

Grievance Complaint #01-0972

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on September 3, 2002.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 10, 2002 and the probable cause determination filed by the Waterbury Judicial District Grievance Panel on June 26, 2002, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on August 2, 2002.  The Respondent did not appear at the hearing.  Attorney John Welch appeared on behalf of the Complainant.

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

As required by Practice Book §2-27(a)(1), Webster Bank notified the Statewide Grievance Committee that on November 5, 2001, check number 5903, payable to the Department of Treasury-IRS, in the amount or $1,037.92, was presented for payment on the Respondent’s clients’ fund account against insufficient funds.  However, the check was honored by Webster Bank.  The Respondent’s balance after payment was negative $463.71.  The Respondent’s payment to the IRS involved form 941 payment of withheld employee tax payments.  Notice of the overdraft and a request for written explanation and documentary evidence was sent to the Respondent by the Statewide Bar Counsel on November 8, 2001. 

By letter dated November 16, 2001, the Respondent replied that he did not have a good explanation for the overdraft.  The Respondent indicated that the overdraft was due to his inattention and losing track of the account. 

At a meeting conducted on February 21, 2002, the Statewide Grievance Committee, pursuant to Rule 9(b)(4) of the Statewide Grievance Committee Rules of Procedure, determined that the Respondent’s explanation was inadequate and that the matter warranted further investigation.  Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Complainant to conduct an investigation pursuant to Practice Book §2-29(e)(1) and to determine whether to initiate a grievance complaint.  By letter to the Respondent and Respondent’s counsel, dated March 18, 2002, grievance counsel requested that an appointment be made with grievance counsel and that the Respondent provide “copies of all statements, check stubs, checks, ledger cards for clients and any and all other available information with regard to the clients’ fund account in question for the period of December 1, 2000 through January 3, 2002.”  Subsequently, an appointment was made for May 3, 2002 with grievance counsel.  Counsel for the Respondent appeared and indicated that the Respondent decided not to appear and declined to provide additional information.  Thereafter, the Grievance Panel filed the subject complaint on May 10, 2002. 

The Respondent did not file a response to the grievance complaint.

This reviewing committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence:

The Respondent failed to file a response to the grievance complaint without good cause shown, in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).  The Respondent drafted a check to the IRS on his clients’ funds account against insufficient funds, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The payment to the IRS involved form 941 payment of withheld employee tax payments.  The Respondent’s use of his clients’ funds account for personal debt violated Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and in consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the grievance complaint, we order that a presentment be filed against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

                                                          
Attorney Katherine Webster-O’Keefe

                                                         
Attorney Frederick Krug

                                                         
Rev. Meredith Payton