STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Scottie L. Anthony Complainant vs. Stephen V. Moran Respondent

Grievance Complaint #99-0234

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, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut on February 2, 2000. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on September 9, 1999, and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on December 6, 1999, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) .

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 28, 1999. The Complainant appeared and testified before the reviewing committee. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing. The record reflects that the notice of assignment of complaint and hearing notice were sent to the Respondent at both the work and home address listed on his most recent Attorney Registration form. All notices were returned as undeliverable.

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

In approximately November of 1994, the Respondent, a public defender, was appointed to represent the Complainant in a criminal matter. The Complainant met with the Respondent at the Respondent's office on two occasions and presented his views regarding the case. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent failed to discuss his case with him or provide the Complainant with any documentary information pertaining to his case. The Complainant stated that he appeared in court on December 22, 1995 and was advised by the Respondent that he was appearing for sentencing. The Complainant contended that he was under the influence of alcohol during this court proceeding and so advised the Respondent. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent told him to remain silent. The Complainant testified that he did not know what he was pleading guilty to or the length of his sentence until he appeared before the judge. When the judge asked the Complainant whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the Complainant responded on the advice of the Respondent that he was not. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent did not represent his position to the court.

s This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in ethical misconduct. We find the unrebutted allegations of the Complainant to be credible and proven true. The record reflects that the Respondent failed to discuss the Complainant's case with him, failed to answer the Complainant's questions, failed to communicate with the Complainant regarding his plea and sentencing, and failed to provide the Complainant with any documentation regarding his case, in violation of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's failure to file an answer to this grievance complaint also constitutes a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). This reviewing committee could not conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.16 or 8.4(3) and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Accordingly, we order that the Respondent be reprimanded for his violations of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) and Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

____________________________________
Attorney Margaret P. Mason

__________________________________
Attorney Lorraine D. Eckert

____________________________________
Mr. Paul Hawkshaw