Hartford Firefighters' Federal Credit Union v. Roger J. Anstey

November 21, 1997

Hartford Firefighters' F.C.U. Attorney Roger J. Anstey

Attn: Darrell Basler P.O. Box 1463

776 Maple Avenue Avon, CT 06001

Hartford, CT 06114

Re: Grievance Complaint #96-0407

Hartford Firefighters' F.C.U. v. Anstey

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

The Statewide Grievance Committee has carefully studied the record of the above-referenced grievance complaint, including the proposed decision of the reviewing committee, which conducted a hearing in this matter on June 11, 1997. Based upon its review of the record, the Statewide Grievance Committee, at a meeting held on November 20, 1997, has decided to adopt the proposed decision of the reviewing committee. Accordingly, the Respondent, Roger J. Anstey, is hereby REPRIMANDED by the Statewide Grievance Committee.

The Respondent is also ordered to comply with the following condition pursuant to Practice Book Section 27M.1: the Respondent shall attend continuing legal education courses at his or her expense, regarding the area of law office management as indicated on Attachment A.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Horwitch

cc: Attorney Atherton B. Ryan

STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Hartford Firefighters' Federal Credit Union, Complainant vs. Roger J. Anstey, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0407

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 June 11, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on November 6, 1996 and the determination filed by the Hartford/New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel on January 17, 1997, finding probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on April 28, 1997. Darrell Basler, manager of the Hartford Firefighters' Federal Credit Union, appeared and testified on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent also appeared and testified.

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

The Respondent was responsible for handling a number of debt collection matters on behalf of the Complainant. One of these matters involved an individual by the name of Gail Velazco. A judgment had entered against Gail Velazco in favor of the Complainant in the original principal amount of three thousand twenty-three dollars and twenty-four cents ($3,023.24). The Respondent located real property owned by Ms. Velazco and placed a judgment lien on it on behalf of the Complainant. In December of 1994, Gail Velazco sold the property, and seven thousand four hundred eighteen dollars and ninety-three cents ($7,418.93) was transmitted to the Respondent in payment of the amount of the lien, including interest on the judgment. The Respondent sent a release of the judgment lien to Ms. Velazco. The Respondent failed to disburse these funds to the Complainant. In or around February of 1996, the Complainant learned through its own investigation of the matter that the Respondent had received payment, and had released the judgment lien, but had not disbursed the funds to the Complainant. When the Complainant's manager confronted the Respondent with this information, the Respondent indicated that as a result of an error in bookkeeping, he had failed to properly record the payment. The Respondent did not have the funds available to pay the Complainant, but offered to make installment payments to the Complainant until the amount owed to the Complainant was satisfied. As of the date of this hearing, the Respondent had reimbursed the Complainant.

In another matter involving a debtor by the name of James P. Sampson, the Respondent received installment payments on a judgment entered against Mr. Sampson in favor of the Complainant. The Respondent collected the installment payments for a period of approximately two years without remitting payment to the Complainant. In February of 1996, Mr. Sampson contacted the Complainant to advise that his credit report was reflecting an incorrect balance. When the Respondent was contacted by an employee of the Complainant, he finally disbursed the funds he had collected to the Complainant.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that when he was contacted by the Complainant regarding the Velazco matter, he went through his records, and could not find an entry for the amount paid on the ledger card kept for the Complainant. The Respondent testified that he believes the secretary he employed at the time he received the funds failed to record the amount received. He testified that he assumed the surplus in the account was a fee, and therefore took the money from his account. With respect to the Sampson matter, the Respondent testified that he has an agreement with his collection clients that he will disburse funds he has received on their behalf when they request that he do so. In the Sampson matter, the Complainant never requested a status report, and he therefore did not disburse the funds.

This reviewing committee finds clear and convincing evidence in the record of this complaint that the Respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. We find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to communicate with the Complainant regarding his receipt of payment in the Velazco matter, and failed to adequately communicate with the Complainant regarding his receipt of payments in the Sampson matter, in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We further find that the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing the Complainant's interests in the Velazco and Sampson matters, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to adequately communicate with the Complainant regarding his receipt of payments in those matters, by failing to disburse to the Complainant in a prompt and reasonable manner those payments which were received, and by failing to see to it that amounts received on behalf of his client were properly recorded in his clients' trust records. We also find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to appropriately safeguard funds received on behalf of the Complainant, by failing to promptly remit funds received on the Complainant's behalf to the Complainant, by failing to promptly notify the Complainant when he received funds on its behalf, and by failing to keep funds belonging to the Complainant separate from his own, when he removed funds received on the Complainant's account as a fee.

Based on the Respondent's testimony, we are concerned that the Respondent has failed to take adequate measures to prevent a similar occurrence. One of the most important duties of an attorney is the proper safekeeping of funds held on behalf of a client. In light of our concerns, and in light of the serious nature of the misconduct at issue, we recommend the following: (1) that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent; (2) that the Statewide Grievance Committee order the Respondent to attend 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 that it is so adopted; (3) that the Statewide Grievance Committee order the Respondent to engage an accountant to establish a system for the Respondent to comply with Practice Book '27A(b) and submit to quarterly audits of his trust account and supervision of his trust account by an accountant for a period of two years from the date of the final decision of the Statewide Grievance Committee, with reports of the results of said audits to be submitted to the Statewide Grievance Committee on a quarterly basis during the period of supervision, with the Respondent to bear responsibility for all costs concerning the same. Recognizing that Practice Book '27M.1(a)(7) provides that an order to submit to periodic audits and supervision of an attorney's trust account requires the Respondent's consent, the Respondent is directed to state in writing his intention whether to consent to this recommendation during the fourteen day comment period provided for statements to be submitted in response to this proposed decision pursuant to Practice Book '27J(g).

Attorney David A. Curry

Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan