STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Nicole Asher, Complainant vs. Duncan B. Hume, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #06-0099
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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on August 1, 2006. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on January 27, 2006, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on April 3, 2006, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 3.1, 3.2 and 8.4(3) and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).
Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant, to the Respondent and to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel on July 6, 2006. Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(d), Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Patricia King pursued the matter before this reviewing committee. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the hearing.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
In August of 2003, the Respondent agreed to represent the Complainant in connection with a small claims action pending against the Complainant. The Respondent agreed to defend the claim being made against the Complainant by the Plaintiff, Bull’s Head Pet Hospital (hereinafter, “Pet Hospital”) for veterinary services and to pursue the Complainant’s counterclaim. In a letter to the Complainant dated August 11, 2003, the Respondent advised the Complainant that he would file a motion to remove the small claims action to the regular court docket. The Respondent further advised the Complainant that if the motion was not granted, he could withdraw the counterclaim and initiate a separate action on the regular docket against the Pet Hospital. In September of 2003, the Complainant paid the Respondent a $500 retainer and the expected court costs.
By letter dated January 7, 2004, the Respondent forwarded to the Complainant a draft complaint against the Pet Hospital. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent on numerous occasions to review the draft complaint. The Respondent did not return the Complainant’s telephone calls. In a letter dated June 15, 2004, the Respondent advised the Complainant that the litigation had been started and that as soon as he had something to report, he would do so. Thereafter, the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on numerous occasions regarding her case. The Respondent did not return the Complainant’s telephone calls. The Respondent did not act on the small claims matter. The Complainant discovered that the Respondent moved his office and that his office telephone numbers were no longer in service. Subsequently, the Complainant learned that her small claims counterclaim was dismissed on December 2, 2003. The Respondent did not inform the Complainant of the dismissal of her counterclaim.
The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.
This reviewing committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Practice Book by clear and convincing evidence:
This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent engaged in unethical conduct in connection with his representation of the Complainant. The Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in representing the Complainant. The Respondent failed to defend the Complainant’s interests and failed to proceed on the counterclaim in the small claims litigation in violation of Rules 1.2(a) and 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to handle the Complainant’s matter expeditiously in violation of Rule 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to notify the Complainant of his change of office address and telephone numbers and failed to return the Complainant’s telephone calls in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to notify the Complainant of the dismissal of her counterclaim in violation of Rules 1.4 and 8.4(3) and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In consideration of his lack of action in pursuing the Complainant’s matter, the Respondent’s fee was unreasonable in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
We also conclude that the Respondent failed to file an answer to the grievance complaint in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). We find no evidence of a violation of Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Since we conclude that the Respondent engaged in serious ethical misconduct, we direct the Disciplinary Counsel to file a presentment against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.
DECISION DATE: 10/13/06
____________________________________
Attorney Shari Bornstein
________________________________
Attorney Geoffrey Naab
________________________________
Dr. Romero Vidone