STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

 Dennis J. Cummins, Complainant vs. Ronald A. Stone, Respondent

 

Grievance Complaint #02-1056

 

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 January 14, 2004.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 2, 2003, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District Grievance Panel for the towns of Bethany, New Haven and Woodbridge on July 2, 2003, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 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 December 5, 2003.  The Complainant did not appear at the hearing.  The Respondent appeared and testified at the hearing. 

 

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

 

In or around January of 1997, the Complainant, an attorney admitted to practice law in New Jersey, obtained a judgment for $3600.50 on behalf of the plaintiff in Paul Walter v. Diana Schulz.  Ms. Schulz had no New Jersey assets to satisfy the judgment, but the Complainant learned that Ms. Schulz owned forty acres of land in Woodbridge, Connecticut.  In or around June of 1997, the Complainant retained the Respondent to collect on the New Jersey judgment against the Woodbridge property owned by Ms. Schulz.  The Complainant paid the Respondent $250 to begin an action in Connecticut on the New Jersey judgment.

 

In September of 1997 and March of 1998, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent and asked for a status update on the case.  The Complainant received no response to either letter.  In June of 1999, the Complainant spoke to the Respondent by telephone and was informed that judgment had entered in Connecticut.  The Complainant immediately wrote a letter to the Respondent confirming this conversation and asking for a copy of the Connecticut judgment.  The Respondent did not respond to that letter or to follow up written requests from the Complainant that were sent in August of 1999 and January of 2001.  The Complainant thereafter learned that no Connecticut judgment had entered.  This complaint followed.

 

The Respondent did not answer the grievance complaint.

 

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

 

By letter dated January 9, 2004, the Complainant notified the Statewide Grievance Committee that he and the Respondent had reached a “settlement” of the matter and that the Complainant wished to withdraw the grievance complaint.  After being informed that the Committee’s policy was to pursue all grievance complaints and that they could not be withdrawn, the Complainant mailed a follow up letter to the Statewide Grievance Committee dated January 12, 2004 in which he disclosed that a withdrawal of the grievance was discussed as an aspect of the overall settlement of the Complainant’s dispute with the Respondent. 

 

The Respondent testified that he concluded that the Woodbridge property in which Ms. Schulz had an ownership interest could not be acted upon to enforce the judgment because it was part of a subdivision.  The Respondent did not inform the Complainant of his conclusion. The Respondent admitted that he did not answer the Complainant’s repeated requests for information concerning the status of the case.  The Respondent offered no plausible reason for not answering the grievance complaint.  Finally, the Respondent testified that he was under the misapprehension that he could settle the grievance complaint.

 

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).  The Respondent did little or nothing to enforce the New Jersey judgment in Connecticut after being retained by the Complainant.  The Respondent’s failure to advance the Complainant’s client’s interests in Connecticut in a diligent fashion violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent also violated Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by repeatedly failing to answer the Complainant’s reasonable requests for information regarding the status of the case.  Indeed, it appeared to us that the sparse information that the Respondent gave to the Complainant actually contained misrepresentations that the judgment had entered in Connecticut when this was untrue.  The Respondent violated Rule 1.4(b) by failing to inform the Complainant that the Woodbridge property would not be a collectable asset to satisfy the judgment, thus prohibiting the Complainant and his client from making an informed decision in the matter.  The Respondent violated Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) by failing to answer the grievance complaint.

 

We cannot conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was incompetent to handle the matter for which he was retained, and thus do not find a violation of Rule 1.1.

 

In light of our decision below to reprimand the Respondent, we will refrain from issuing additional probable cause findings regarding the Respondent’s attempts to settle the grievance and to have the matter withdrawn.  We believe it sufficient to sharply criticize the Respondent for this clearly inappropriate conduct and to issue a reprimand for the other ethical violations.

 

 

The Respondent is reprimanded for violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).

 

 

                                                            

Attorney Raymond B. Rubens

 

 

                                                              

Attorney Margarita Moore

 

 

                                                             

Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan