STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Daniel B. Horwitch, Statewide Bar Counsel, Complainant vs. James F. Altham, Jr., Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0199

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 July 9, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on August 30, 1996, and the determination rendered by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 & 8 Grievance Panel on October 24, 1996, finding probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the July 9, 1997 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on May 19, 1997. The Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. The Respondent was represented by Attorney Robert Zanesky.

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

On or about July 27, 1996, the Respondent attempted to cash check number 2501 drawn on his clients' trust account at a market located in Hamden, Connecticut. The check was drawn in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00). The check resulted in an overdraft on the Respondent's clients' trust account, which overdraft was reported to the Office of the Statewide Bar Counsel on August 5, 1996. The Respondent did not respond to requests from the Statewide Bar Counsel to provide an explanation for the overdraft, and as a result, the instant complaint was filed against the Respondent. The Respondent testified that he believed at the time that he cashed the check that there were sufficient funds available in his account, which, according to the Respondent, represented fees which were due to him. The Respondent testified that he maintains fees which are owed to him in his clients' trust account.

This reviewing committee also considered the following testimony:

The Respondent admitted to this reviewing committee that he does not maintain individual ledgers for each of his clients. He does not keep a receipt and disbursement journal identifying all deposits in and withdrawals from the account, as required by Practice Book Section 27A(b). The Respondent testified that he does not do so because of the relatively small amount of money handled in his trust account.

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has violated Rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the instant matter, the Respondent was attempting to withdraw fees which had been kept in his clients' trust account in spite of Rule 1.15(a), which prohibits an attorney from maintaining his personal funds in his clients' trust account. Also, Rule 1.15(a) requires an attorney to maintain complete records regarding his clients' trust account. We find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to maintain the clients' trust account records required under Section 27A of the Practice Book, including individual client ledgers and property records of receipts and disbursements, and therefore, he failed to maintain the "complete records" required under Rule 1.15(a). It is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent and order the Respondent to complete a continuing legal education course in law office management within six months of the adoption of this proposed decision by the Statewide Grievance Committee, provided it is so adopted.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore C. DePiano

Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan