STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Gerald Lombardi, Complainant vs. John Timbers, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #04-1258

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 August 10, 2005.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 30, 2004, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on March 29, 2005, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 8.1(2) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).

This matter was initially scheduled to be heard on June 8, 2005.  The Respondent appeared on that date and requested a continuance.  The request for a continuance was granted.

Notice of the August 10, 2005 hearing was mailed to the Complainant, to the Respondent and to Disciplinary Counsel on July 8, 2005.  Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared.  Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(d), Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Frank Blando pursued the matter before this reviewing committee.

Subsequent to the hearing on August 10, 2005, the Respondent filed a “Motion to Reschedule Hearing.”  The motion indicated that a supporting memorandum would be filed.  However, no such memorandum has been filed.  Accordingly, this reviewing committee hereby denies the motion.

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

The grievance complaint in this matter was filed on December 30, 2004.  The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint within the thirty days mandated by Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).  By letter to the Respondent dated February 4, 2005, Attorney Stephen J. Conover, counsel to the Stamford/Norwalk Grievance Panel, requested an immediate answer.  The Respondent did not file an answer in response to this letter.  After the initial June 8, 2005 hearing in this matter was continued, the Respondent submitted a written explanation dated June 21, 2005. This stated that the Respondent had begun to prepare an answer to the grievance complaint but did not finish it, and thereafter stopped working on it upon receiving the Grievance Panel’s finding of probable cause.  The Respondent indicated that he was very busy during this time period due to working at additional jobs outside of his full-time law practice.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The grievance complaint alleged that the Respondent had been loaned an automobile by the Complainant in October of 2004; that the Respondent refused to return the vehicle when initially demanded by the Complainant; and that the Respondent had damaged the vehicle.  In his written submission, the Respondent denied the Complainant’s allegations, indicating that he never refused to return the automobile, and that it was already in poor shape when he received it.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in unethical conduct.  The Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the grievance complaint, despite a reminder letter from the grievance panel’s counsel, constitutes a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) and Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s contention of being “very busy” does not constitute good cause for failing to file a timely answer.  The Respondent’s June 21, 2005 submission was filed almost five months after an answer was due, and was only done well after probable cause had been found and after the initial reviewing committee hearing.  Accordingly, while this reviewing committee  does consider the substance of this June 21, 2005 submission and therefore does not find a violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it concludes that the Respondent did not file a timely answer, in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) and Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent is reprimanded.

                                                                                    Attorney Noble F. Allen

                                                                                    Mr. William Carroll

                                                                                    Attorney Raymond B. Rubens