STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

 

William E. Wheeler, Sr.,Complainant vs. Kenneth E. Wheeler, Respondent

 

Grievance Complaint #02-1022

 

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 October 1, 2003.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on April 24, 2003 and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on July 3, 2003, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.1, 3.2 and 8.4 (2), (3) and (4) 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 September 8, 2003.  The Complainant appeared and testified. The Respondent did not appear.  Attorney Deborah Cantrell represented the Complainant, assisted by law student interns Thomas Koval and Lea Fletcher of the Yale Law School Lawyering Ethics Clinic.

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

 

The Complainant is the Respondent’s father.  On or about June 26, 2000, the Respondent used the Complainant’s social security number without the knowledge or consent of the Complainant to obtain a loan from Key Bank USA National Association (hereinafter, “Key Bank”) in connection with the lease of a 1999 Porsche Model 911 automobile.  The Respondent signed a lease credit application on June 26, 2000 in connection with the transaction.  In or around December of 2000, the Respondent defaulted on the loan from Key Bank.  On or about May 1, 2002, Key Bank initiated a replevin action in the Superior Court against the Complainant, the Respondent and others for the vehicle (Key Bank USA National Association vs. Wheeler & Synder, et al, Docket No. CV02-0189331S).  The Respondent appeared and “represented” the Complainant, himself, and the other defendants in the lawsuit without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent.  Thereafter, the Respondent permitted summary judgment to enter against the Complainant on December 2, 2002. An order of judgment entered on January 27, 2003 in the amount of $101,635.15 plus $34.82 per diem interest from December 2, 2002 until collected.  The Complainant first learned of the lawsuit and judgment when he received a letter from Key Bank’s counsel, Robin Keller, dated March 5, 2003, informing him that he owed a balance due of $101,635.15 plus interest pursuant to the judgment.

 

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

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

The Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s social security number to obtain financing for a Porsche Model 911 automobile involved a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(2) the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s use of the Complaint’s social security number without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent to obtain a loan in connection with the lease of the Porsche involved conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent misrepresented himself to the court as counsel for the Complainant in the Key Bank litigation in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by misrepresenting himself to the Court as counsel for the Complainant in the Key Bank litigation and by permitting summary judgment to enter against the Complainant in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent failed to respond to the grievance complaint without demonstrating good cause in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).  Since the Respondent held himself out as counsel for the Complainant in the Key Bank litigation without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent, we find the record lacks clear and convincing evidence of any attorney-client relationship or a violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.1 or 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Respondent.  Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and in consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, we order that a presentment be filed against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate. Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(f), we order that our findings relative to the Respondent’s violation of Rule 8.4(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct be reported to the Chief State’s attorney.

____________________________________

Attorney Noble Allen

 

___________________________________

Attorney Tracie Molinaro

 

____________________________________

Mr. George W. Sawyer