STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Edna Lowe, Complainant vs. Rudolph A. Cohen, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0777

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 March 25, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford/New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 13 & 14 Grievance Panel on April 23, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.15(b), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 31, 1996. The Complainant appeared and testified. The Respondent also appeared and testified.

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

On or about April 27, 1989, the Respondent represented the Complainant regarding the refinancing of her home located at 401 Blue Hills Avenue in Hartford, Connecticut. As a result of the refinance transaction, approximately fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000.00) was paid to the Complainant. The Respondent approached the Complainant about investing these proceeds. The Complainant agreed to allow the Respondent to invest the proceeds and the Complainant and Respondent entered into a written agreement on or about April 27, 1989. The Respondent thereafter invested part of these proceeds in a second mortgage handled through R and C Investors, Inc., a mortgage broker for which the Respondent was owner, operator and chief executive officer. At no time did the Respondent disclose to the Complainant the nature of his association with the company with which she was investing her money. The Complainant was unaware that she was investing in a mortgage handled by the Respondent's company. The Respondent never advised the Complainant that she should seek the advice of independent counsel with respect to the investment. The Respondent subsequently repaid the Complainant at least the amount of her investment, and possibly more.

This reviewing committee does not find clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.7, 1.15 or 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, this reviewing committee does find clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent entered into a business transaction with a client or former client, without fully disclosing the details of the transaction in writing to his client, and without providing his client a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel with respect to the transaction, or advising her as to whether he would be providing legal services in connection with the transaction, in violation of Rule 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The written agreement entered into between the Complainant and Respondent omits any disclosure of the Respondent's role as owner of the company providing the mortgage, and omits any mention of the Complainant's right to seek independent legal advice.

Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore C. DePiano

Mr. Neal Jewell