STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Terence Fokas, Complainant vs. Andrew M. Haynes, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0961

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 January 8, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 28, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on June 27, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and (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 November 27, 1996. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared before this reviewing committee and gave testimony.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings:

In his complaint the Complainant alleged that he retained the Respondent in 1994 to commence suit against the Complainant's former partner. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent filed a lis pendens against real estate belonging to the Complainant's former partner. The lis pendens was not valid because it referenced a New York action. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent represented to the Complainant that a Connecticut action was filed. Thereafter, the Respondent advised the Complainant of court dates that were canceled, and when pressed gave the docket number of a different action. The Complainant alleged that on October 21, 1995 he learned from the Stamford Superior Court Clerk's Office that no suit had been filed. The Complainant retained new counsel, Attorney Timothy Butler, when he learned that the statute of limitations almost expired and that the real estate had been transferred because the lis pendens was invalid. The Respondent did not file an answer to this grievance complaint.

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Complainant testified in accordance with the allegations of his complaint. The Respondent admitted misconduct. The Respondent admitted that he did not file suit on behalf of the Complainant and that he then lied to the Complainant. The Complainant sued the Respondent for malpractice and the Respondent has agreed to pay the Complainant. The Respondent testified that he did not file an answer to this grievance complaint because he thought it was not required.

This reviewing committee criticizes the Respondent for lying to the Complainant. This reviewing committee has noted the Respondent's admission of misconduct at the hearing before this reviewing committee and his agreement to settle the Complainant's malpractice claim against him. While this reviewing committee criticizes the Respondent, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee dismiss this complaint.

Attorney Salvatore DePiano

Attorney Lewis Hurwitz

Mr. Thomas McKiernan