STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel, Complainant vs. Joseph Mirsky, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0968

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, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut on December 4, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 31, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Tolland Judicial District Grievance Panel on August 6, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 4.4 and 3.5(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on October 30, 1996. The Complainant appeared through counsel, Attorney Ferrio. Attorney Ferrio presented the testimony of Attorney Kathleen Allsup and Joseph L. Carroll, a family services counselor. The Respondent also testified before the reviewing committee.

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

On April 15, 1996, Attorney Kathleen Allsup who represented the defendant in a limited contested dissolution matter and the Respondent, reported to the Honorable Douglas Mintz on the matter. The court referred counsel to a pretrial before family services counselor Joseph L. Carroll. The main issue at the pretrial was the issue of child support. At the beginning of the pretrial, Attorney Allsup and Mr. Carroll detected the smell of alcohol on the Respondent. When Attorney Allsup began to make her presentation, the Respondent rudely interrupted her. Mr. Carroll asked the Respondent to let Attorney Allsup make her presentation. While Attorney Allsup continued with her presentation, the Respondent used a profane hand gesture representative of male masturbation. The Respondent's conduct continued even after Attorney Allsup indicated that she found his actions offensive. The pretrial was disrupted. Mr. Carroll, who indicated he was also personally offended by the Respondent's conduct, ended the pretrial. A short time thereafter the Honorable Douglas Mintz had an in camera hearing on the actions of the Respondent. The Respondent offered his apology to Attorney Allsup and indicated that his actions were inappropriate. He also provided Attorney Allsup with an apology letter on or about April 16, 1996. Judge Mintz referred the matter to the Statewide Grievance Committee.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that he did not intend that the gesture be personally directed at Attorney Kathleen Allsup. He indicated that he was angry at the progress of the dissolution pretrial and was reacting to the client's position. He also indicated that he generally practices law on the criminal side and at times is rougher than he should be. Attorney Allsup testified that the Respondent's conduct was not an isolated incident. She indicated that she had had problems in prior matters with the Respondent in reference to belligerent conduct and obscene gestures and language.

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's actions at the pretrial before the family services counselor were clearly unprofessional. We conclude that the Respondent's actions had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass Attorney Kathleen Allsup and Mr. Carroll in violation of Rule 4.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We also find clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in conduct that was intended to disrupt a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.5(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. While the Respondent offered an apology, we conclude that his conduct clearly warrants discipline. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Margaret P. Mason

Mr. Marcus R. McCraven