STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Bonny Appel, Complainant vs. Barbara Shea, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0162

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut, on February 1, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on August 24, 1995 and the probable cause determination rendered by the Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on November 24, 1995, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.2, 1.5 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 27, 1995. At the hearing on February 1, 1996, the Respondent did not appear. The Complainant appeared and was heard by this reviewing committee. The reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Donna Middletown and Holly Gay.

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

In or about April, 1995, the Complainant retained the Respondent to represent her with regard to divorce proceedings. The Complainant entered into a retainer agreement with the Respondent and paid a $5,000.00 retainer fee. The Respondent initiated divorce proceedings on or about April 6, 1995. Subsequently, the Complainant was informed that the retainer was depleted. The Respondent requested an additional $5,000.00. The Complainant agreed to charge $2,500.00 on a credit card and the Respondent indicated she would complete the matter for $2,500.00. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent informed the Complainant that if she did not provide a $5,000.000 debit on her credit card, she would not go to court the next day.

The Complainant and her husband did not own any property together. The Complainant was unemployed. The Respondent did not obtain any pendente lite support. Ultimately, the Respondent filed a motion to withdraw. The Complainant concluded the divorce proceeding pro se.

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 representing the Complainant in the divorce action involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent violated Rules 1.2 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by threatening to withdraw from the case on the eve of the hearing unless the Complainant made additional payment. This reviewing committee finds the Respondent's $7,500.00 fee to be unreasonable in consideration of the amount involved and the results obtained in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee recommends that the Respondent make restitution to the Complainant in the amount of $3,750.00. This reviewing committee further recommends that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Salvatore DePiano

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma