STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

John L. Williams, Lucille Morris, Complainants vs. Rudolph A. Cohen, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0943

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 November 13, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 21, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 & 17 Grievance Panel on June 28, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1 and 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainants and to the Respondent on October 2, 1996. The Complainants appeared and were heard by this reviewing committee. The Respondent did not appear.

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

The Respondent borrowed $10,000.00 from a client, Complainant Morris' deceased husband and Complainant Williams' father. The Complainants wrote to the Respondent requesting the Respondent's intention to repay the $10,000.00 loan. The Complainants claim that the balance due is $7,000.00. The Respondent informed the Complainants that he would begin repayment in early 1996 but did not. The Respondent answered the grievance complaint by admitting to the loan which was not documented in writing. The Respondent further answered that he has signed a note in favor of the estate. The Respondent further answered that he will pay the loan off as soon as his finances allow. At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Complainants testified to the facts alleged in their complaint.

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

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1 and 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent entered into a business transaction with a client in the form of a loan, in violation of Rule 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, on terms which were not fair and reasonable to the client and were not fully disclosed and transmitted to the client in writing in a manner which could reasonably be understood by the client. Neither did the Respondent advise his client in writing that his client should consider seeking the advice of independent counsel in the transaction nor did the Respondent give the client a reasonable opportunity to do so. Neither did the Respondent obtain his client's written consent thereto. Furthermore, the Respondent did not provide competent representation to his client when he borrowed money from his client without written documentation of the loan in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, this reviewing committee recommends that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Alfred Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore DePiano