STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Domenic Cammarota, Complainant vs. Anne P. Phillips, Respondent

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut on March 6, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on April 24, 1995 and the probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on November 16, 1995 finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.7(b) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee's probable cause determination was contrary to the determination of no probable cause filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on August 9, 1995.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on January 23, 1996. At the hearing on March 6, 1996, the Complainant and the Respondent appeared and gave testimony. The committee also heard the testimony of Alfonse Cammarota, Alfonse Cammarota, Sr. and James Ontra.

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

The Complainant's father, Alfonse Cammarota, Sr., owned seventeen condominium units located at 3370-80 Madison Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut. In June 1993, the Respondent's father James G. Pappas, an attorney and retired municipal court judge, acting through a trustee, purchased several delinquent tax liens on the subject property from the City of Bridgeport at a public auction. The Respondent performed the legal work for the City of Bridgeport relative to the auction. In April 1994, Lafayette American Bank and Trust (LABT) redeemed the liens from the trustee. A certificate of foreclosure was approved by the court on November 29, 1994 and recorded on December 9, 1994. On or about December 20, 1994, the Respondent agreed to represent the Complainant in the purchase of residential property at 3404 Madison Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut. During this period, the Complainant requested the Respondent to assist him in obtaining financing to repurchase the condominiums from LABT. Specifically, the Complainant wanted the Respondent to inquire if her father would finance the condominium purchase. The Respondent informed the Complainant that he should contact her father directly.

On December 25, 1994, the Complainant joined the Respondent's family, including Joseph Pappas and James Ontra, for the Christmas holiday. The condominiums were a topic of conversation. After December 25, 1994, the Complainant and the Respondent's son James Ontra went to Mr. Pappas' house with rent rolls, blueprints and other information relative to the condominiums. Subsequently, Mr. Pappas indicated to the Respondent that he might be interested in buying the condominiums. The Respondent contacted the bank for information relative to the purchase price. Mr. Pappas agreed to a purchase price of $500,000.00 cash. The condominiums closed on December 30, 1994. The Respondent attended the closing, issued title insurance, performed title rundown, recorded the papers and was the contact person with the bank's attorney. The residential property purchased by the Complainant also closed on December 30, 1994. The Respondent did not consult with the Complainant or obtain the Complainant's consent relative to representation of her father regarding the condominium transaction.

The reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent indicated that her father had no representation other than himself at the closing. The Respondent claimed that she never told her father anything the Complainant communicated to her concerning the deal.

This reviewing committee finds the following violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence:

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in representing her father in closing on the condominiums involved a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's representation of her father was directly adverse to the Complainant's expressed interest in acquiring the condominiums. The Respondent's representation of the Complainant was materially limited by her responsibility to her father. The Respondent did not obtain the Complainant's consent to the representation. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant's interest in the condominium at the time of representing both her father in closing the condominiums and the Complainant with regard to closing on the residential property. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Margaret Mason

Mr. Marcus McCraven