Thea E. Gurlides v. Althea Dinan, Sr. and Althea Dinan II

STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Thea E. Gurlides, Complainant vs. Althea Dinan, Sr., Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0486A

Thea E. Gurlides, Complainant vs. Althea Dinan, II, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0486B

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, 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 September 3, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 4, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on April 18, 1997 finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondents violated Rules 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee's probable cause determination was contrary to the determination of no probable cause filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on March 4, 1997.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondents on July 22, 1997. The Complainant appeared and gave testimony. The Respondents appeared, represented by Attorney William Gallagher, and gave testimony. An exhibit was entered into evidence.

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

Respondent Althea S. Dinan, Sr. (hereinafter "Respondent I") and Respondent Althea Dinan, II (hereinafter "Respondent II") are partners in the law firm of Dinan and Dinan, P.C. The Respondents represented the Complainant in a dissolution of marriage action in which the Complainant was the defendant. The Respondents' law firm also represented a Patric Marchitto in connection with a dissolution of marriage action. The Complainant and Mr. Marchitto are both married to other individuals. In connection with the representation, the Complainant informed Respondent I that she was involved in an intimate relationship with Mr. Marchitto. Respondent I communicated with the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto regarding potential conflict issues relative to the multiple representation. The Complainant and Mr. Marchitto consented to the dual representation.

Trial was initially scheduled for November 8, 1995 in connection with the Complainant's divorce litigation and subsequently continued to December 4, 1995. Opposing counsel in the Complainant's divorce litigation notified the Respondent of her intention to subpoena Mr. Marchitto in connection with the trial. In a motion to disqualify dated November 8, 1995, the Plaintiff requested that the Respondent's firm be disqualified from representing the Complainant and contended that the Respondents firm's representation of the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto involved a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The divorce action settled on December 4, 1995, prior to the Court's consideration of the motion to disqualify.

In connection with the representation, Respondent I used vulgar language in communications with the Complainant. Respondent I failed to return numerous telephone calls made by the Complainant. Respondent I failed to adequately explain to the Complainant the terms of settlement relative to the marital home.

The reviewing committee also considered the following:

Respondent I indicated that she made a good faith judgment whether she would be able to represent both the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto. Respondent I contended that the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto both had the same interest. Respondent I further contended that there was no conflict relative to the representation. Respondent II testified that she did not believe there was any conflict of interest in the firm's multiple representation of both the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto.

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

The Respondents' representation of both the Complainant and Mr. Marchitto with regard to their individual dissolution of marriage actions involved an inherent, unwaivable conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. There existed a strong likelihood that the Respondents' representation of the Complainant would be materially limited by the Respondents' responsibilities to Mr. Marchitto. Although both clients consented to the multiple representation, it was not reasonable for the Respondents to believe that the respondent of the Complainant would not be adversely affected by the representation of Mr. Marchitto. The reviewing committee further concludes that Respondent I failed to adequately communicate with the Complainant in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to adequately explain to the Complainant the settlement provisions relative to the marital home to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the Complainant to make informed decisions regarding the property. This reviewing committee criticizes Respondent I's use of vulgar language in communication with the Complainant. The record lacks clear and convincing evidence to substantiate a finding of a violation of Rules 1.2 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Respondents. Notwithstanding, since we conclude that both Respondents violated Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and that Respondent I violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondents.

__________________________
Attorney Margaret Mason

__________________________
Attorney Lewis Hurwitz

__________________________
Mr. Marcus McCraven