STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Theresa Alers, Complainant vs. Mark Warren, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #99-0814

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 August 2, 2000. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 27, 2000, and the probable cause determination filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on June 8, 2000, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4(a) and 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 2-32(a)(1) of the Practice Book.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on June 27, 2000. The Complainant appeared and testified at the hearing. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

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

In August of 1999, the Complainant retained the Respondent to represent her on a criminal matter. The Complainant paid the Respondent a retainer of $600.00. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with a fee agreement outlining the fee to be charged or the scope of the representation to be undertaken. Thereafter, the Respondent notified the Complainant of the wrong court date for her matter, which resulted in the Complainant being charged with a failure to appear. The Respondent was thereafter disbarred from the practice of law in October of 1999 on a separate matter, but never informed his client of the disbarment. The Respondent never appeared in court at a hearing with the Complainant while representing her.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in ethical misconduct. The Respondent accepted a retainer from the Complainant but did not provide her with a fee agreement that outlined the basis of the fee to be charged and the scope of the representation to be undertaken. This conduct violated Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We conclude that the Respondent did not reasonably communicate with his client regarding the proper court date in her criminal matter in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to notify her of his disbarment in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent also did not file an answer to the grievance complaint, in violation of Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 2-32(a)(1) of the Practice Book.

It is the decision of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

__________________________________
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.

__________________________________
Attorney Noble F. Allen

__________________________________
Professor Paul Hawkshaw