STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 

Jeffrey Sawyer, Complainant vs. Martha R. Marti, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0345 

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, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut, on May 9, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on October 25, 1995 and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on February 7, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on March 29, 1996. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and were heard by the reviewing committee. This reviewing committee makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence: The Complainant sought representation by the Respondent in a dissolution action. The Complainant paid the Respondent approximately $1,300.00 in a retainer. After approximately three meetings with the Respondent, the Complainant resolved his matter and ended the representation. The Respondent agreed to refund some of the Complainant's retainer. When the Respondent did not follow through on the refund, the Complainant wrote two registered letters to the Respondent, one was sent on or about May 30, 1995 and the other on or about September 8, 1995. The Respondent did not reply to the letters or to telephone calls. The Complainant indicated that the Respondent did not contact him, did not provide any refund and did not provide any itemized billing statement. 

The Respondent did not file a written reply to the grievance complaint, but appeared and testified. She indicated that she did not promptly and properly respond to the Complainant's request for a refund. She noted that she had personal financial problems during the summer of 1995, in part due to an automobile accident in which she hurt her foot. The Respondent stated that she essentially avoided the Complainant because she did not have any money to give him. She apologized and offered a full refund. This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent acknowledged that she owed the Complainant a refund and agreed to provide him a refund shortly after the end of her representation. The record reflects that the Respondent ceased communicating with the Complainant between the spring of 1995 until the hearing on this grievance complaint. We find the year delay in communicating with the Complainant about the Respondent's position was in violation of the Respondent's ethical obligations in dealing with a client. We note that the Respondent had personal problems, but that does not fully mitigate her actions. This reviewing committee expects the Respondent will abide by her representation to the committee that she will provide the Complainant with a refund in a timely manner. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent for a violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Attorney Kate Haakonsen 

Ms. Caroline Wakefield