STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Karen Normington, Complainant vs. John Harris, Jr., Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0050

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, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut, on March 6, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 21, 1995 and the probable cause determination filed by the Windham Judicial District Grievance Panel on November 14, 1995, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and (b) and 1.15(a), (b), and (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent. At the hearing on March 6, 1996, The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and gave testimony. Exhibits were received into evidence.

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

The Complainant is the administratrix of the estate of Shirley Welch. Ms. Welch, who died on August 20, 1994, was the Complainant's mother. The sole asset of the estate consisted of a $20,000.00 note and mortgage executed by the Complainant's father, John Welch, in connection with his divorce. Subsequent to the Complainant mother's death, Mr. Welch sold the real estate secured by the note and mortgage. Prior to the closing, the Complainant's attorney, Gail Brook-Norman, notified the Respondent that the $20,000.00 mortgage was due if and when the property was sold. The Respondent represented Mr. Welch in the divorce and with regard to the subject closing.

At the closing on December 12, 1994, the buyer's attorney, Paul Smith, delivered a check to the Respondent in the amount of $20,000.00 as a payoff of the note and mortgage. Subsequent to the closing, the Respondent refused to release the $20,000.00, despite demand for payment of the debt. The Respondent used a portion of the $20,000.00 to pay a disputed claim his client had against the estate relative to an automobile.

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent admitted that he accepted the check in a trustee capacity and was aware of the $20,000.00 note and mortgage. The Respondent further admitted that he indicated to the buyer's attorney that he would pay off the mortgage.

On July 21, 1995, the probate court ordered that the Respondent immediately transfer the $20,000.00 to the estate and that interest be paid. On or about July 28, 1995, the Respondent tendered the funds to pay off the mortgage debt and interest.

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

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in connection with the $20,000.00 trustee check involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to appropriately safeguard the closing funds in violation of Rule 1.15(a) by using a portion of the funds to pay a disputed claim. The Respondent failed to escrow the disputed portion of the closing funds in violation of Rule 1.15(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to promptly deliver to the estate funds in which it was entitled to receive in violation of Rule 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct breached ethical standards. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Margaret P. Mason

Mr. Marcus McCraven