STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Gerald W. Jablonski, Complainant vs. Stuart Rothenberg, Respondent 

Grievance Complaint #95-1006A

Gerald W. Jablonski, Complainant vs. Seymour Rothenberg, Respondent 

Grievance Complaint #95-1006B

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on April 3, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 11, 1996 and the probable cause determinations filed by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on December 22, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondents violated Rules 1.3, 1.5(b), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee's probable cause determinations were contrary to the determinations of no probable cause filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel on October 4, 1996.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondents on February 25, 1997. The Complainant and the Respondent Seymour Rothenberg appeared and gave testimony. The Respondent Stuart Rothenberg did not appear for the hearing.

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

In or about November or December, 1995, the Complainant began his relationship with the Respondents' firm. The Complainant and his wife and Steve Leon and his wife each purchased a twenty-five percent interest in a cleaning business known as Hanger, Inc. The Respondents did not enter into a written fee agreement with the Complainant. Subsequent to the purchase of the cleaning business, Steve Leon and his wife divorced. The Respondent represented Steve Leon in the divorce and the Complainant was subpoenaed and testified in the divorce proceedings. Steve Leon's wife retained twenty-five percent interest in Hanger, Inc. Subsequent to her divorce, Steve Leon's former wife sued Hanger, Inc., Steve Leon, the Complainant and his wife. The Respondent represented Steve Leon, the Complainant and the Complainant's wife in the action brought by Steve Leon's former wife. Beginning on or about March 21, 1996, the Complainant made numerous requests of the Respondents for his files. The Complainant was unsuccessful in his attempts to even see his files.

This reviewing committee also took into consideration the following:

The Respondent Seymour Rothenberg testified that it was his preference that the Complainant's partner, Steve Leon, be present when the Complainant reviewed the files in case there was a possible conflict of interest between the two. The Respondent ultimately, however, testified that the Complainant could make arrangements to view his files at the Respondents' law office at any reasonable time. The Respondent Seymour Rothenberg also testified that it was his belief that there was a written fee agreement but did not produce one.

It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondents violated Rule 1.5(b) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondents never executed a written fee agreement with the Complainant. It is also our opinion that in spite of their obligation to do so, the Respondents repeatedly refused to allow the Complainant access to his files in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is our recommendation that the Respondents each be reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee.

Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O'Keefe

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma