STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Stefania Santinon, Complainant vs. William E. Hill, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #04-0282
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, One Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut on January 13, 2005. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 24, 2004, and the determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District Grievance Panel for the towns of Bethany, New Haven and Woodbridge on November 5, 2004, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.15 and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant, to the Respondent and to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel on November 29, 2004. At the hearing, the Complainant appeared and testified. The Respondent did not appear. Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Frank Blando pursued this matter before this reviewing committee, pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(d).
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
The Complainant retained the Respondent in 1997 regarding a personal injury claim arising out of an assault. The Respondent represented to the Complainant that he had filed suit and that the matter was going well. Subsequently, the Respondent represented to the Complainant that the matter had been settled for $12,000. However, the Respondent never disbursed any funds to the Complainant, despite promising on a number of occasions that the funds were “in the mail.” The Respondent subsequently made various representations to the Complainant as to why he was unable to disburse the funds, including that the law firm that he was associated with at the time refused to release the funds because the settlement was inadequate.
The Complainant also retained the Respondent regarding a personal injury claim arising out of an ankle injury at an open-house in the year 2000. Between September of 2000 and February of 2002, the Respondent communicated with the tortfeasor’s insurance company regarding the claim. Ultimately, the Complainant told the Respondent that she would accept the insurance company’s offer of $500 to settle the matter. However, the Respondent never completed the settlement and no funds were ever paid.
The statutes of limitation have now passed for both claims. In December of 2003, the Respondent signed a note by which he promised to pay the Complainant $12,500 by January 15, 2004. The Respondent did not advise the Complainant to seek the advice of independent counsel before entering into the transaction. The Respondent never made any payments on the note, despite promises to do so made to both the Complainant and Complainant’s subsequent counsel, Attorney Jane W. Griffith. The Complainant paid the Respondent $1000 during the course of the representations. The Respondent was to use a portion of this $1000 to pay the Complainant’s rent, but never did so. Despite numerous demands from the Complainant, the Respondent has failed to refund any portion of the $1000, even though he promised to do so and again made various representations such as that the funds were “in the mail.” The Respondent has also failed to return the Complainant’s files to her, despite numerous requests from the Complainant that he do so.
The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.
The Respondent was suspended by the court (Silbert, J.) on January 12, 2001 in a prior grievance matter (CV00-0442079). The Respondent’s reinstatement was conditioned upon his taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. The Respondent has not been reinstated. The Respondent was also suspended on July 1, 2002 for failing to pay the Client Security Fund fee. The Respondent has not been reinstated by subsequent payment of the fee.
This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to pursue the personal injury matter arising out of the ankle injury in a diligent manner, resulting in no payment to the Complainant, despite a settlement having been agreed to by the Complainant, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to properly safeguard funds in which the client had an interest, both with regard to the $1000 given to the Respondent by the Complainant and with regard to the $12,000 settlement funds received pursuant to the 1997 personal injury matter, in violation of Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent made many misrepresentations to the Complainant, including numerous promises to turn over funds and files to the Complainant, promising to pay on the note, and with regard to the status of the claims, in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In light of the serious nature of the violations, this reviewing committee orders that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline is deemed appropriate.
Given that a presentment is a trial de novo, it is the further order of this reviewing committee that the presentment include additional charges as follows: that the Respondent failed to answer the grievance complaint, in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) and Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; that the Respondent failed to adequately communicate with the Complainant regarding the status of the personal injury claims, in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; that the Respondent entered into a prohibited transaction with the Complainant regarding the note without properly advising her to seek independent counsel, in violation of subsections (a) and (h) of Rule 1.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and that the Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by continuing his representation of the Complainant subsequent to the date of his suspension in 2001, in violation of Rule 5.5(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
____________________________________
Attorney Tracie Molinaro
___________________________________
Attorney Jorene M. Couture
____________________________________