STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Juan Arriola, Dayna Arriola, Complainants vs. Paul M. Ngobeni, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #05-0941
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 May 11, 2006. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on October 14, 2005, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Britain Judicial District, and Judicial District of Hartford for Geographical Area 12 and the towns of Avon, Bloomfield, Canton, Farmington and West Hartford Grievance Panel on December 13, 2005, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book Section 2-32(a)(1).
Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainants, to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and to the Respondent on March 31, 2006. Pursuant to Practice Book Section 2-35(d), Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Patricia King pursued the matter before this reviewing committee. The Complainants appeared at the hearing and testified. The Respondent did not appear.
Reviewing committee member Dr. Paul Powers was not available for the hearing. Since the Disciplinary Counsel waived the participation of Dr. Powers, this decision was rendered by the undersigned.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
The Complainant Juan Arriola retained the Respondent regarding a pending employment discrimination case in federal court. The Respondent filed his appearance on July 30, 2001. After a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in November of 2001, the Respondent filed an appeal. The appeal was successful and the case was remanded to the federal district court on January 15, 2003. However, the Respondent thereafter became unresponsive and neglected the matter. Judgment entered for the defendant on the remanded case on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in July of 2003.
The Complainant Dayna Arriola retained the Respondent to represent her in two cases, one involving the Willimantic Police Department and the other the Windham Board of Education. After adverse decisions, the Respondent was to file appeals in both cases, and was given funds for the fees and costs of the appeals. After filing a notice of appeal in each case, the Respondent did not further pursue the matters. Both Complainants were initially satisfied with the Respondent’s representation, but the Respondent thereafter stopped responding to communication attempts and failed to notify them about the status of the matters.
The Respondent did not answer the grievance complaint.
This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in unethical conduct. The Respondent’s failure to pursue the Complainants’ claims constituted a lack of competence and a lack of diligence, in violation of Rules 1.1 and 1.3, respectively, of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s failure to communicate with the Complainants as to the status of their matters was in violation of both subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having not pursued the appeals, those portions of the Respondent’s fees and costs attributable to the appeals were unreasonable, in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s failure to answer the grievance complaint was in violation of Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).
We direct the Disciplinary Counsel to file a presentment against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever sanction is deemed appropriate. The issue of restitution may be addressed to the court in the course of the presentment.
DECISION DATE: 7/17/06
Attorney Tracie Molinaro
_________________________________
Attorney Jorene Couture