STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Eric Golub, Complainant vs. James F. Altham Respondent

Grievance Complaint #97-0640

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, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on September 9, 1998. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on February 5, 1998, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 and 8 Grievance Panel on April 6, 1998, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition to the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 and 8 Grievance Panel on April 6, 1998, the undersigned reviewing committee found probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Notice of the additional finding of probable cause was sent to the Complainant and to the Respondent on August 19, 1998.

Notice of the September 9, 1998 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 23, 1998. At the hearing, Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie, a member of this reviewing committee, heard testimony from the Complainant. Attorney Lewis A. Hurwitz, the other member of this reviewing committee, was not available for the hearing, but reviewed the transcript of the testimony, along with the record of the instant complaint. The Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint and did not appear at the hearing.

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

On or about December 17, 1997, the Complainant paid the Respondent a five hundred dollar ($500.00) retainer fee for the Respondent's representation in a matter concerning the Complainant's access to his daughter's school records. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with a written retainer agreement or anything in writing concerning the basis for his fee and the scope of his representation. The Complainant subsequently made telephone calls to the Respondent concerning the status of the matter, which calls were not returned. The Complainant left a message with the Respondent requesting a return of his retainer, to which the Respondent did not reply. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, the Complainant had not received any contact from the Respondent concerning either the status of the Complainant's matter or whether the Respondent intended to return the Complainant's retainer.

This reviewing committee finds, based on the Complainant's unrebutted testimony, that the Respondent failed to advance his client's matter and failed to diligently respond to the Complainant's inquiries concerning the matter. The reviewing committee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence concerning the Complainant's matter, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee also finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to provide his client a written statement concerning the basis of his fee and the scope of his representation, in violation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is, therefore, the decision of this reviewing committee that the Respondent is reprimanded for his conduct. In addition, as it appears, in the absence of any evidence or response from the Respondent to the contrary, that the Respondent has failed to take any action to earn the five hundred dollar ($500.00) fee paid in advance by the Complainant, this reviewing committee orders, pursuant to its authority under Practice Book Section 2-37(2), that the Respondent make restitution to the Complainant in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) within thirty days of the date of this decision. We also order the Respondent to provide the Statewide Grievance Committee documentation of his compliance with the order of restitution within ten days of his compliance with the same.

____________________________________

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

___________________________________

Attorney Lewis A. Hurwitz