STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Elizabeth Wheeler, Complainant vs. Anthony E. Feit, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0804

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on January 2, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on April 4, 1996, and the probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on September 20, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee's finding of probable cause was contrary to the finding of no probable cause filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 13 & 14 Grievance Panel on July 3, 1996.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant on December 10, 1996. The Complainant and the Respondent each appeared and gave testimony. This reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Betty Wheeler on behalf of the Complainant and Carol Winston on behalf of the Respondent.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:

The Complainant was involved in a custody dispute with her former husband. The Complainant attended a hearing, pro se, in March, 1994. At that hearing, the court continued the matter until March 30, 1994, and urged the Complainant to retain counsel. The Complainant met with the Respondent in his office at approximately 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 1994. At that time, the Complainant retained the Respondent and paid him a retainer. The Complainant told the Respondent about her hearing scheduled for March 30, 1994. The Respondent told the Complainant that he was leaving on vacation but that he would protect her interests. The following week, the Complainant telephoned the Respondent's office to confirm that she would be protected on March 30, 1994. The Respondent's secretary, Carol Winston, assured the Complainant that the Respondent would take care of the matter.

The hearing involving the Complainant's custody dispute went forward on March 30, 1994. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent was present. At the hearing, the Complainant's former husband gave testimony and was not subject to cross-examination. Custody was awarded to the Complainant's former husband. Upon his return from his vacation, the Respondent filed an appearance in April, 1994.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that at their initial meeting on March 18, 1994, the Complainant did not tell him that a hearing was scheduled for March 30, 1994. He testified that his intake notes did not reflect such a hearing. He testified that prior to leaving for vacation, he should have checked the court calendar to ascertain whether anything was scheduled that should be addressed before he left on vacation. The Respondent offered that the appropriate disposition of the grievance complaint was its dismissal but that he be ordered to take a course in law office management.

It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is our opinion that the credible evidence is that when the Respondent was retained by the Complainant on March 18, 1994, shortly after the Complainant was advised by the court to retain counsel to appear at a hearing on March 30, 1994, the Complainant told the Respondent about the March 30, 1994 hearing. The Respondent failed to take appropriate steps with reasonable diligence to protect the Complainant's interests by failing to be present at the hearing or to take steps to assure its continuance. Although the Respondent's intake notes make no mention of a March 30, 1994 hearing, we do not find this dispositive. It is the recommendation of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee and ordered to complete a course in law office management no later than six months from the issuance of a final decision by the Statewide Grievance Committee.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O'Keefe

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma