STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Irma J. Flood, Complainant vs. Haiman Long Clein, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0539

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, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on December 11, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on January 3, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on February 7, 1996, finding probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on November 13, 1996. The Complainant appeared and testified. The Respondent also appeared and testified. This reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Mr. Reginald Flood. Exhibits were admitted into evidence. This reviewing committee also considered documentary evidence submitted subsequent to the hearing by way of correspondence from Attorney John J. Carta, which correspondence was dated March 4, 1997. A copy of said correspondence was mailed to the Respondent on March 6, 1997 and the Respondent was afforded an opportunity to respond to the same. This reviewing committee has not received an objection to our consideration of the correspondence from Attorney Carta.

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

In or around March of 1995, the Complainant and her husband retained the Respondent's services with respect to a foreclosure proceeding instituted against their home. During March of 1995, the Complainant and her husband paid the Respondent two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). In June of 1995, they paid the Respondent an additional one thousand dollars ($1,000) and in August of 1995, another one thousand dollars was paid to the Respondent. At least a portion of these amounts were paid to the Respondent as a fee. The remaining portion was provided to the Respondent for purposes of payment to the mortgage lender plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding in the event a settlement of the foreclosure matter could be reached.

In December of 1995, the Complainant and her husband attempted to contact the Respondent regarding the disposition of the funds that they had given him. The Complainant was unable to obtain an accounting of the funds, as the Respondent had suddenly left the state in or around the month of December. As of the date of the hearing on this matter, the Complainants have not received the balance of any funds owed them, or an accounting of money paid.

This reviewing committee also considered the following evidence:

The Respondent testified that he believes that he earned a substantial part of the amounts deposited with his office as a fee. He did admit, however, that the Complainants were owed a refund of at least some of the amounts paid to him. The Respondent was not, however, able to provide specific information regarding how much was earned as a fee, and how much was owed the Complainants. The Respondent's file in the Complainant's matter is currently in the possession of a trustee appointed for the protection of the Respondent's clients, Attorney John J. Carta, Jr. According to correspondence from Attorney Carta, a review of the Flood's file indicated that the file did not contain a retainer agreement, or any billing or time records.

This reviewing committee finds clear and convincing evidence in the record of this complaint that the Respondent has violated Rule 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to account to the Complainant as to the disposition of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) paid to the Respondent during the course of his representation. It also finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to adequately communicate with the Respondent concerning the status of the funds deposited with the Respondent. As it appears to this reviewing committee that the Respondent abandoned his responsibilities to his clients in this matter, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence in this matter on behalf of his clients, in violation of Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In light of our concerns about the disposition of the funds received by the Respondent, and the Respondent's conduct regarding his responsibilities to his clients in this matter, it is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee present the Respondent to a judge of the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

___________________________

Attorney Salvatore DePiano

___________________________

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie