STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Mary Nagy, Complainant vs. James F. Altham, Jr., Respondent 

Grievance Complaint #99-0921

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 March 7, 2001. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on April 27, 2000, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 & 8 Grievance Panel on July 18, 2000, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.5, 1.16(d) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32.

Notice of the March 7, 2001 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on February 9, 2001. The Complainant appeared and testified at the hearing. The Respondent did not appear. An exhibit was admitted into evidence.

Reviewing committee member Professor Paul Hawkshaw was not available for the hearing. Since his participation was not waived by the Complainant, Professor Hawkshaw reviewed the record, including a transcript of the March 7, 2001 hearing, and participated in the decision in this matter.

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

The Complainant retained the Respondent in December of 1998 regarding a dispute arising from the Complainant’s dismissal from a graduate nursing program. From that time until March of 1999, the Respondent provided legal services and advice to the Complainant. In March of 1999, the Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months. After the six month suspension expired, the Complainant again sought the Respondent’s assistance. In November of 1999, the Complainant retained the Respondent to prepare a written response for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”), which was due on December 8, 1999. The Complainant paid the Respondent $600.00 on November 23, 1999. No written fee agreement was provided by the Respondent. When the Complainant subsequently went to the Respondent’s office in early December, she learned that the Respondent had cashed the Complainant’s check but had not prepared the document. The Complainant requested a refund of the $600.00, but this was not provided.

The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s failure to prepare the CHRO response constitutes a lack of diligence in violation of Rule 1.3. The failure to have a written fee agreement constitutes a violation of Rule 1.5(b). The Respondent having done nothing to earn the $600.00 fee, his failure to refund the unearned fee constitutes a violation of Rule 1.16(d). The Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the grievance complaint constitutes a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). The committee further finds that the foregoing actions by the Respondent constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is the decision of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be reprimanded, and pursuant to Practice Book §2-37(a)(2), that he return the $600.00 fee to the Complainant within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision.

__________________________________
Attorney Lewis A. Hurwitz

__________________________________
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.

__________________________________
Professor Paul Hawkshaw