STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

William C. Gillmore, Cheryl A. Gillmore, Complainants vs. Alan M. Solomon, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-1025

PROPOSED 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, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on May 1, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 14, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 and 8 Grievance Panel on August 27, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainants and to the Respondent on March 20, 1997. At the hearing the Complainants and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. Exhibits were admitted into evidence.

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

In or around May of 1989, the Respondent participated with another individual as a second mortgage lender in connection with a fifty-five thousand dollar ($55,000) second mortgage loan to the Complainants without obtaining the license required by Connecticut General Statute '36a-511. In a foreclosure action against the Complainants, the Respondent, a plaintiff in the action, submitted a false supplemental affidavit to the court. The affidavit was false as a result of the Respondent's omission of certain material information. In the supplemental affidavit of the Respondent, dated March 29, 1996 in Solomon v. Gillmore, docket number #CV93-0046713-S, in the Windham Judicial District, the Respondent stated in paragraph four "[a]t the time of the making of the loan which is the subject of this foreclosure action, I was exempt from the license requirement of C. G. S. '36a-512 (formerly '36-224b) because I granted fewer than 5 secondary mortgage loans in the twelve consecutive months prior to the making of this loan, and I granted fewer than 5 secondary mortgage loans in the twelve months following the making of this loan. I did not make any loans in any twelve consecutive months where the aggregate of said loans exceeded $100,000.00." The Respondent's affidavit omitted reference to subsection 5(B) of '36a-512 which provides that each individual loan may not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00).

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that Attorney Lawrence S. Hillman represented him in the foreclosure action and that the Respondent was not involved with the case. The Respondent indicated that the affidavit was prepared by Attorney Hillman. The Respondent further indicated that it was not his intention to misrepresent or mislead the court when he signed the affidavit. The Respondent indicated that he believed that the affidavit was correct at the time he signed it.

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

The Respondent's conduct in submitting to the court an affidavit that was false by virtue of the omission of material information violated Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct in providing a secondary mortgage loan to the Complainants in excess of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) without complying with the statutory licensing procedure set forth in Connecticut General Statutes '36a-511 involved dishonesty in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In consideration of the seriousness of the Respondent's misconduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee order that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

Attorney David Curry

Attorney Robert J. Kor

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith