STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Sebastian Lewis, Complainant vs. I. Edmund Hare, Jr., Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0295

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, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut, on September 11, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on October 6, 1995 and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford Judicial District, Geographical Areas 13 & 14 Grievance Panel on January 10, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 17, 1996. The Complainant appeared at said hearing and testified. The Complainant was represented by Attorney Francis C. Vignati, Jr. The Respondent also appeared and testified. Exhibits were admitted into evidence.

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

On or about June 23, 1992, the Complainant sustained injuries in a fall during the course of his employment. On or about October 4, 1993, the Complainant retained the Respondent to represent him regarding these injuries. The Respondent pursued a claim for workers' compensation on the Complainant's behalf. The Respondent also filed a lawsuit against the owner of the premises on which the Complainant was injured. Judgment in the suit was entered against the Complainant on the grounds that the owner of the property did not have control of the premises. The lawsuit was filed more than two years after the Complainant's injury, although the Respondent testified before this reviewing committee that he believed a defense was available to a statute of limitations claim. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent for an extended period of time while the Respondent was handling his matter, but the Respondent did not return his phone calls or otherwise communicate with the Complainant about the status of the lawsuit against the owner of the premises until such time as the Complainant retained new counsel, in or around March of 1995. The Respondent acknowledged at the hearing on this matter that he did not adequately communicate with the Complainant.

This reviewing committee finds clear and convincing evidence in the record that the Respondent failed to adequately and diligently communicate with the Complainant in this matter. The Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant's reasonable requests for information. Accordingly, we find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We do not find that the Respondent violated Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, as we have found a violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, it is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimandthe Respondent.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore C. DePiano

Mr. Neal Jewell