STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Luz Rios, Complainant vs. Haiman Long Clein, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0749

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 April 3, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 18, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on July 3, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 2.1 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on January 3, 1997. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the hearing.

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

The Respondent represented the Complainant with regard to a claim in connection with an automobile accident occurring in February 1995. The Respondent informed the Complainant that her case was in the final stages of settlement. Thereafter, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent but was unsuccessful. The Respondent failed to contact the Complainant.

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

The Respondent's conduct in representing the Complainant with regard to a claim in connection with an automobile accident involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of her case in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct breached ethical standards. It is recommended that the Statewide Grievance Committee file a presentment against the Respondent with the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

_________________________________

Attorney David A. Curry

_________________________________

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith

I respectfully dissent from the majority proposed decision. I find no clear and convincing evidence in the record to substantiate a finding of an ethical violation by the Respondent.

________________________________

Attorney Robert J. Kor