Ray Arjomand, Complainant vs. S. Pal Asija, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #04-0722
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 December 1, 2004. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 28, 2004 and the probable cause determination filed by the Ansonia/Milford Judicial District Grievance Panel on October 18, 2004, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(4) 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 1, 2004. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the hearing. Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(d), Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Patricia King pursued the matter before this reviewing committee.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
In October of 2003, the Complainant filed a small claims action against the Respondent. After a hearing before a magistrate, the Complainant prevailed and judgment and costs entered against the Respondent on March 17, 2004 in the total amount of $2450. Weekly payments of $35 were ordered. The Respondent did not file an appeal or claim for a trial de novo. Thereafter, the Respondent refused to pay the small claims judgment. After the subject grievance complaint was filed, the Respondent paid the judgment in full on or about November 26, 2004.
This reviewing committee also considered the following:
In answer to the grievance complaint, the Respondent contested the jurisdiction of the small claims court.
This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in ethical misconduct in connection with the March 17, 2004 small claims judgment. The Respondent’s failure to pay the small claims judgment was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the Respondent contended that he contested the jurisdiction of the small claims court, he did not file any appeal or claim for trial de novo. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, we reprimand the Respondent.
____________________________________
Attorney Rita A. Steinberger
___________________________________
Attorney Randy L. Cohen
___________________________________
Mr. William D. Murphy