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, 1 Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut on January 11, 2001. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on August 23, 2000, and the probable cause determination filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on October 5, 2000, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 8.1(2) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).

&Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on January 20, 2000. At the hearing on January 11, 2001 the Complainant and the Respondent did not appear. The matter was reviewed on the written record.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:

In December of 1998, the Respondent agreed to represent the Complainant Kaszas in a divorce proceeding. Complainant Kaszas is Complainant’s Varsames’ son. The Respondent was paid $1,030.00 in connection with the representation. Subsequently, the Complainants were unable to communicate with the Respondent or anyone in the Respondent’s office. Ultimately, the Complainant Varsames was able to contact the Respondent who commenced limited communication with the Complainant Varsames by facsimile. The Respondent did not return the Complainant Kaszas’ divorce papers. The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.

The Respondent’s conduct in connection with his representation of the Complainant Kaszas in a divorce case involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed regarding the status of the representation in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to file an answer to the grievance complaint in violation of Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). This reviewing committee finds that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Notwithstanding, since we conclude that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a) and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1), we reprimand the Respondent. Pursuant to Practice Book §2-37(a)(4), we order the Respondent to return Complainant Kaszas’ divorce file within thirty days of the issuance of this decision and to notify the Statewide Grievance Committee of his compliance with this order within fourteen days.

___________________________________
Attorney David Curry

___________________________________
Attorney Lorraine Eckert

___________________________________
Ms. Mary Ellen Smith