STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Sally Laurent Armour, Complainant vs. David C. Evans, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #99-1067

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 March 14, 2001. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 12, 2000, and the probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on November 16, 2000, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 8.1(2) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book Section 2-32(a)(1).

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on February 9, 2001. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the hearing before this reviewing committee. The Respondent has not registered with the Statewide Grievance Committee since 1994. The Respondent was disbarred in 1999. The Respondent’s notice of the hearing was returned to the Statewide Grievance Committee on March 16, 2001 by the post office marked “return to sender attempted not known.”

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

The Complainant retained the Respondent to represent her in a civil and workers’ compensation case in 1994. The Respondent failed to represent the Complainant.

The Complainant, thereafter, filed a civil lawsuit against the Respondent. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing on the civil lawsuit and judgment entered against him. The Complainant has been unable to locate the Respondent to determine what assets he may have.

This reviewing committee finds the following violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence:

The Respondent’s failure to pay the civil judgment entered against him in the Complainant’s favor constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We do not, however, find a violation of Rule 8.1(2) or Practice Book §2-32(a)(1) by clear and convincing evidence. Since we find a violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we reprimand the Respondent.

__________________________________
Attorney Randy Cohen

__________________________________
Attorney Raymond B. Rubens

__________________________________
Mr. Thomas McKiernan