STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Lauren Morelli, Complainant vs. Roger J. Anstey,  Respondent

Grievance Complaint #97-0146

 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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on May 7, 1998.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on August 15, 1997, and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel on November 25, 1997, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on March 24, 1998.  The Complainant and Respondent both appeared at the hearing and testified before this reviewing committee.

During the course of the hearing, the Respondent was ordered to provide additional documentation to this reviewing committee, by way of a copy of his client account ledger card regarding the Complainant.  This information was provided by the Respondent on May 13, 1998.

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

The Complainant was injured in a New York automobile accident in February of 1992.  She hired the Respondent to represent her in connection with those injuries.  The Complainant's claim was settled in or around November of 1993.  The terms of the settlement provided for a lump sum payment of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00), and an additional structured payment of one hundred sixty-eight thousand one hundred fifty dollars ($168,150.00) payable over twenty years in four year intervals.

The Respondent received the lump sum payment in or around November of 1993.  The Respondent deducted his one-third fee from the funds paid on the lump sum installment, and also paid a number of the Complainant's medical providers.  The Respondent paid the Complainant thirty thousand seven hundred ninety-nine dollars and sixty-two cents ($30,799.62), but retained the balance of the lump sum payment in the amount of one hundred eleven thousand five hundred seventy-eight dollars and fifty-five cents ($111,578.55) in order to pay the Complainant's unpaid medical providers as well as liens on the settlement proceeds in favor of the Complainant's medical and no-fault insurance providers.  Without the Complainant's knowledge or consent, this balance was held in the form of cash stored in a cash box in a locked file cabinet in the Respondent's office.  The Respondent testified that he would deposit the cash into his clients' fund account as needed in order to write checks to pay the Complainant's medical bills.
 

Over the next two years, the Respondent made a number of unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from the insurance carriers regarding the amount of their liens.  In the meantime, the Complainant became concerned about the Respondent's representation, and obtained the services of another attorney to inquire about the balance of the lump sum settlement held by the Respondent.  After a series of correspondence with the Complainant's new attorney, the Respondent provided the Complainant with the balance of her funds on or about July 2, 1997, in the amount of one hundred eight thousand seventeen dollars and ten cents ($108,017.10).

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by maintaining the balance of his client's settlement in the form of cash kept in a locked file cabinet for a period of almost four years.  Rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires an attorney to place funds held on behalf of a client in a bank account, unless the client consents to some other arrangement.  In the instant matter, the Respondent's client never consented to allowing the Respondent to hold the balance of the funds held on her behalf, which funds were in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), in the form of cash locked in the Respondent's office.  In our opinion, the Respondents manner of handling the funds at issue fell so far below professional standards as to require inquiry by the court.  Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee order that the Respondent be presented to a judge of the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma

Attorney M. Katherine Webster O'Keefe