STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Daniel B. Horwitch, Statewide Bar Counsel, Complainant vs. Rudolph A. Cohen, Respondent :

Grievance Complaint #96-0485

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on June 5, 1997. The hearing addressed the records of the complaints filed on December 4, 1996, and the probable cause determinations filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 & 17 Grievance Panel on January 17, 1997, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.15 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notices of the hearing were mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on April 25, 1997. The Respondent appeared and gave testimony.

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

These grievance complaints are the result of several overdraft notifications from Fleet Bank. On or about October 1, 1996, check #2220 for $20.00 was presented against the Respondent's clients' fund account. There were insufficient funds in the account to cover the check. On or about October 2, 1996, check #2224 for $25.00 was presented against the Respondent's clients' fund account. There were insufficient funds in the account to cover the check. On or about November 5, 1996, check #2107 for $150.00 was presented against the Respondent's clients' fund account. There were insufficient funds in the account to cover the check.

The Respondent testified that the errors were caused by a late deposit and sloppy bookkeeping procedures. He indicated that he did not have any particular reason for why he had not submitted a written response to the grievance complaints. He also asserted that he was embarrassed by the situation. He claimed that he had appeared before the Statewide Grievance Committee only once before.

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent was notified by the bank in early October of 1996 of an overdraft on his clients' fund account. Approximately one month later in early November of 1996, the Respondent again had an overdraft on the account. While the Respondent claimed poor bookkeeping and a late deposit were the cause of the overdrafts, we find that the Respondent's conduct went beyond minor bookkeeping problems. Clearly, the Respondent was not properly monitoring his account and safeguarding clients' funds. We find such conduct violates Rule 1.15 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

While the Respondent testified that in the thirteen years he has practiced he has only appeared before the Statewide Grievance Committee once before, the Respondent's disciplinary record reflects that as of June 5, 1997, five grievance complaints involving the Respondent had gone to public hearings. As of June 5, 1997, he also had two reprimands on his disciplinary record. Several other matters were also pending. The Respondent's course of conduct raises serious questions about his fitness to practice. Since we find that he has improperly managed his clients' fund account and poses a risk to repeat such actions, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee present the Respondent to Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O'Keefe

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma