STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Grievance Complaint #97-0468

John Kearney

Complainant :

vs.

Edward J. Androski

Respondent :

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 July 9, 1998. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 3, 1997, and the probable cause determination filed by the by the Ansonia/Milford Judicial District Grievance Panel on April 6, 1998, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.5(b) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on June 1, 1998. The Complainant and the Respondent each appeared and gave testimony.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:

The Complainant retained the Respondent on or about November 19, 1994, to represent him in a criminal matter. At that time, the Complainant paid the Respondent a retainer of $1,500.00. As security for the balance of his fee, the Complainant executed a mortgage in favor of his brother, Michael Kearney and the Respondent in the amount of $25,000.00. The mortgage deed represented that the Complainant was indebted to the Respondent as evidenced by a promissory note for $25,000.00. No such note was ever executed. The Respondent did not prepare a written retainer agreement for the Complainant.

This reviewing committee took the following into consideration:

The Respondent testified that the $25,000.00 mortgage was the Respondent's attempt to preserve some funds for the Complainant in the face of an impending foreclosure of the Complainant's property and a wrongful death claim which resulted in a substantial judgment against the Complainant. He testified that the execution of the mortgage did result in preserving some assets which went to pay some of the Complainant's costs including a psychiatric evaluation of the Complainant. The Respondent testified that it was never his intention that the $25,000.00 would go to him in its entirety.

It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has violated Rules 1.5(b) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The mortgage deed prepared by the Respondent for execution by the Complainant for the Respondent was dishonest on its face by representing to the world that there was a note when no such note existed. Additionally, no written fee agreement was executed for the benefit of the Complainant. In view of the violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is our decision that the Respondent be reprimanded.

Attorney Anne R. Hoyt

Attorney Vincent DeAngelo

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith