STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Lucille B. Millspaugh, Complainant vs. Haiman Long Clein, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0686

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on January 8, 1997 and May 1, 1997. The hearings addressed the record of the complaint filed on February 26, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on July 13, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 2.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearings on January 8, 1997 and May 1, 1997 were mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 6, 1996 and March 20, 1997 respectively. At the hearings on January 8, 1997 and May 1, 1997, the Complainant appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. The Respondent appeared at the January 8, 1997 and testified. At the January 8, 1997 hearing, the reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Attorney John Carter. At the May 1, 1997 hearing, the reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Attorney Marie Louise Vallar and Attorney Sanford Glassman.

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

The Complainant paid the Respondent a $1,000.00 retainer to represent her in a divorce action. The Respondent held several conferences with the Complainant's husband. The Respondent failed to freeze the marital assets as requested by the Complainant. The financial agreement drafted by the Respondent was based on information provided by the Complainant's husband. The Complainant was not aware of the divorce action being filed. The Respondent did not complete the Complainant's divorce action.

The reviewing committee also considered the following:

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent testified that his office expended between thirty to forty hours on the Complainant's matter. The Respondent further testified that the divorce action was filed. Attorney Marie Louise Vallar testified that she drafted the complaint but was not aware of whether the papers were filed.

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

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in representing the Complainant in a divorce action involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to complete the Complainant's divorce action in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of the matter in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent did not return the unearned portion of the retainer in violation of Rules 1.5, 1.15 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent prepared a financial agreement based on information provided by the Complainant's husband in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct breached ethical standards.

The reviewing committee did not find clear and convincing evidence in the record of a violation of Rules 1.5, 2.1, 1.15, 1.8, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and in consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee file a presentment against the Respondent with the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

______________________________

Attorney Robert J. Kor

______________________________

Attorney David A. Curry

_______________________________

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith