STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 

Daphney Joseph, Complainant vs. Ronald L. Lepine, Respondent 

Grievance Complaint #04-0166A 

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 September 1, 2004.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on February 23, 2004, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Britain Judicial District and Judicial District of Hartford for Geographical Area 12 and the towns of Avon, Bloomfield, Canton, Farmington and West Hartford Grievance Panel on July 2, 2004, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). 

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant, to the Respondent and to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel on July 26, 2004.  The Complainant appeared and gave testimony.  The Respondent did not appear.  Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35(d), Assistant Chief Disciplinary Counsel Patricia King pursued the matter before this reviewing committee.  Attorney Brian Staines testified as a witness.  

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

In 1991, the Respondent was retained to handle a real estate transaction arising out of the Complainant’s marital dissolution.  The Complainant obtained a quit claim deed to the property from her husband.  The Respondent also handled a 1994 refinance of the property.  The Respondent provided a title insurance policy and a title certificate.  All liens on the property were supposed to be discharged.  However, the Respondent failed to discharge all of the liens.  The Complainant’s current attorney, Brian Staines, discovered in 2003 that eight unreleased liens remained on the property.  At least $30,000 was listed on the closing documents as having been disbursed to pay off liens when, in fact, the liens were not paid off.  When the title insurer was contacted by Attorney Staines, it was discovered that the title insurance policy was a mortgagee’s policy rather than an owner’s policy, contrary to the Respondent’s representations.  When contacted by Attorney Staines beginning in June of 2003, the Respondent promised on a number of occasions to produce file documents, but never did so. 

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 pay off liens in the real estate transactions, and his failure to account for the funds designated for that purpose, constitute failures to safeguard funds in violation of Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s failure to answer the grievance complaint constitutes a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).  It is the order of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline is deemed appropriate.  Given that the presentment will be a de novo proceeding, it is further ordered that the presentment complaint contain charges that the Respondent’s conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, for the Respondent’s failure to disclose the true status of encumbrances on the property, his failure to pay off those encumbrances, his failure to provide an owner’s title insurance policy despite representing he had done so, and his failure to abide by promises to Attorney Staines regarding the production of file documents. 

____________________________________
Attorney Rita A. Steinberger 

___________________________________
Attorney Randy L. Cohen 

                                           
Mr. William D. Murphy