Maria G. Melendez, Complainant vs. Thomas W. Bucci, Jr., Respondent
Grievance Complaint #04-0928A
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, 80 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on February 3, 2005. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on September 24, 2004 and the probable cause determination filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on December 6, 2004, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5(a) 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 January 10, 2005. Pursuant to
Practice Book §2-35(d), Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Frank Blando pursued the
matter before this reviewing committee. The Complainant appeared at the hearing
and testified. The Respondent did not appear. Reviewing committee member Dr.
Frank Regan was unavailable for the hearing. Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
Blando waived the participation of Dr. Regan. Accordingly, this matter was
heard and decided by the undersigned.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
In or around April of 2003, the Complainant retained the Respondent to represent her regarding worker’s compensation and motor vehicle matters and an automobile accident. The Complainant paid the Respondent $2500. Thereafter, the Respondent took little or no action with regard to the Complainant’s matters. The Complainant telephoned the Respondent on numerous occasions. The Respondent did not return the Complainant’s telephone calls except for one occasion. The Respondent did not keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of her matters.
The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.
This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). The Respondent took little or no action with regard to the Complainant’s civil matters in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to adequately communicate with the Complainant in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to return the Complainant’s telephone calls and failing to keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of her matters. The Respondent’s $2500 fee was unreasonable in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that he performed little or no legal services on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent failed to file an answer to the grievance complaint without demonstrating good cause in violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). Accordingly, we direct the Disciplinary Counsel to file a presentment against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the Court deems appropriate.
____________________________________
Attorney Kathleen D. Stingle
.__________________________________
Attorney Shari Bornstein