STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Ian Douglas Woolston-Smith, Complainant vs. Laurence T. Muri, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #98-0140

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 February 3, 1999. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on August 20, 1998, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on November 6, 1998, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-27(d).

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 29, 1998. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the hearing before this reviewing committee.

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

The Complainant retained the Respondent in 1993 to pursue a personal injury claim. The Complainant spoke to the Respondent on several occasions. The Complainant was told by the Respondent that the Complainant's claim was pending in New York. In discussions with officials of the state court in New York, the Complainant was informed that no such lawsuit was filed on his behalf by the Respondent. The Respondent did not file an answer to this grievance complaint. The Respondent has failed to ever register pursuant to Practice Book §2-27(d) with the Statewide Grievance Committee.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-27(d). The Respondent has failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the Complainant. The Respondent has failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed about the status of the Complainant's matter and to promptly comply with the Complainant's reasonable request for information. The Respondent has failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the Complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. The Respondent has failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite the Complainant's litigation consistent with the interests of the Complainant

The Respondent has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by telling the Complainant that he had filed the Complainant's lawsuit in New York when in fact he had not. The Respondent has failed to ever register with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Accordingly this reviewing committee orders that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court may deem appropriate.

Attorney Margaret P. Mason

Attorney Thomas Cloutier

Mr. Marcus R. McCraven