STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Pamela Collins, Complainant vs. Louis Avitabilem, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0032

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 December 4, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 11, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Waterbury Judicial District Grievance Panel on August 26, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 1.15(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on October 30, 1996. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and were heard by the reviewing committee. Exhibits were received into evidence.

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

In 1983, the Complainant went to Dr. Pinard to have her eyeglasses fixed. A short time thereafter the lenses in the eyeglasses broke and hurt her eye. She hired the Respondent to pursue civil remedies. By 1995, the Complainant was confused as to the status of her case. She wrote to the Respondent on or about September 28, 1995 asking whether the case had settled and the details of the settlement. She also referred to approximately $3,000.00 in payments from the Respondent that she believed were made to her over the years based on the expectation that a settlement in the civil claim would be forthcoming.

The Complainant also asked the Respondent to attend to an outstanding medical bill in 1989. The Complainant believed the Respondent had already paid the doctor. The Respondent resolved the small claims matter after the Complainant provided funds. Sometime in late 1995, however, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant's inquiries, or to clarify the status of the Complainant's case.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that the Complainant and the Respondent had a longstanding professional relationship. According to the Respondent, the civil action involving the eyeglasses was settled in 1984 or 1985 for $4,500.00 to $5,500.00. He had no documentary records of the settlement. He contended that the Complainant received her proceeds. The Complainant denied knowing of or authorizing any settlement. The Respondent also contended that he loaned the Complainant approximately $20,000.00 since 1983. The Complainant denied that the Respondent had made any loans to her, or that he gave her any more than $6,700.00 total. The Complainant acknowledged that she received about $3,000.00 paid over the years, and $4,261.52 from an unrelated automobile accident case handled by the Respondent in 1993. The Respondent argued that the Complainant wrote to him in September of 1995 merely to threaten him to obtain more money. The Complainant denied the allegation.

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's dealings with the Complainant were very unprofessional. Clearly, the Respondent failed to keep the Complainant adequately informed of the status of the eyeglasses case, and to document for her any purported settlement. We do not find sufficient evidence in the record to conclude a settlement took place in this case without the Complainant's consent. There is insufficient evidence in the record for us to conclude that the case even settled. Regardless, there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to keep the Complainant apprised of whatever action was being taken on the case.

We do not find clear and convincing evidence in the record to conclude that the Respondent neglected the Complainant's action or mishandled any purported settlement sums. Clearly, however, the Respondent's dealings with the Complainant regarding money were poorly documented and sloppy. While we do not make any findings on the issue of loans, we caution the Respondent that any loans between himself and a client must be done in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent for a violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Attorney Margaret P. Mason

Mr. Marcus R. McCraven