Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 400 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on November 7, 2000 and June 19, 2001. The hearings addressed the record of the complaint filed on April 8, 1998, and the probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on July 20, 2000 finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(b) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee’s probable cause determination was contrary to the determination of no probable cause filed by the New Haven Judicial District Geographical Area 6 Grievance Panel on March 31, 2000.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on October 3, 2000 and May 23, 2001. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. Attorney William Moller represented the Complainant. Attorney Kenneth A. Votre represented the Respondent. Exhibits were admitted into evidence.

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

The Complainant is the executrix of the Estate of Mary Jane Child (hereinafter, "the Estate"). The Respondent represented the late Mary Jane Child in a personal injury action arising out of a May 8, 1992 automobile accident. Ms. Child died on February 2, 1997. The personal injury action settled for $50,000.00 shortly after Ms. Child’s death. The Respondent discussed the settlement with the Complainant and recommended that she accept the settlement offer. The Complainant agreed to the settlement and signed a release and settlement of claim dated April 22, 1997. The Respondent provided the Complainant with a personal injury closing statement. The Respondent disbursed $14,049.18 to the Estate and retained the balance of the settlement funds to pay disbursements to health care providers itemized in the closing statement.

The Complainant, as executrix authorized the Respondent to make disbursements to health care providers on behalf of the Estate. In May of 1997 the Complainant hired Attorney Robert E. Regan to represent the Estate. By correspondence to the Respondent from Attorney Regan dated July 22, 1997, July 25, 1997, October 29, 1997, November 12, 1997, February 23, 1998 and February 25, 1998, Attorney Regan requested information regarding the Estate. The Respondent was not responsive to Attorney Regan’s inquiries regarding the settlement of the lawsuit. After the grievance complaint was filed, a hearing conducted by a grievance panel, and reconciliation efforts by grievance panel counsel, the Respondent released to the Estate the funds that he was holding for health care providers.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent contended that he did not pay the medical bills or release the remaining portion of the settlement because the probate court had not approved the settlement. The Respondent testified that he informed the creditors that he required probate court approval in order to disburse the settlement funds to third parties. The Respondent further contended that he informed the Complainant that an application to comprise the personal injury claim had to be filed to obtain probate court approval of the settlement. The Respondent claimed that subsequent to the settlement, the Complainant advised him not to do anything further relating to the Estate.

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent’s conduct in connection with the personal injury settlement involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to keep the Respondent reasonably informed regarding the status of the settlement funds in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to respond to Complainant’s counsel’s inquiries regarding the settlement of the Estate. This reviewing committee finds that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to substantiate a finding that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(b) or 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee noted that reconciliation efforts by Grievance Panel Counsel are not depositive of the ethical issues relative to the grievance complaint. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we reprimand the Respondent.

____________________________________
Attorney Frederick Krug

___________________________________
Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O’Keefe

____________________________________
Ms. Johanna Kimball