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 December 6, 2000. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 27, 2000, and the probable cause determination filed by the Windham Judicial District Grievance Panel on October 3, 2000, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 8.4 of the Rules Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).

&Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on October 26, 2000. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. The reviewing committee also heard the testimony of Christine Loschiavo and Florence Loschiavo. Exhibits were admitted into evidence.

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

In August of 1999 the Complainant consulted with the Respondent regarding a potential medical malpractice claim against a dentist. At the initial consultation the Complainant’s medical malpractice issue was discussed. The Respondent advised the Complainant that an “expert dental witness” was required to support her legal claims. The Respondent further advised the Complainant to arrange to be examined by another dentist and to inform the Respondent upon completion of the necessary examination. The Complainant paid an initial $150.00 fee for the Respondent’s costs and out of pocket expenses. The Respondent explained to the Complainant that upon perfection of a claim the case would be handled on a contingency fee basis and a written fee agreement would be provided. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s requests for information regarding the status of the malpractice matter. The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint.

In August of 1999 the Complainant also provided the Respondent with documents to review regarding pending civil litigation relative to a real estate matter. The Respondent informed the Complainant and her two daughters that in order to review the files and land records, and communicate with opposing counsel regarding the real estate matter an additional fee was required. The Respondent requested a $1,250.00 fee and was ultimately paid $1,000.00 in two $500.00 installments. Upon completion of the review of the Complainant’s real estate matter, the Respondent advised the Complainant that if he were to accept the case and file an appearance an $8,000.00 advance fee was required. Thereafter, the Complainant requested that the Respondent return her file. The Respondent returned the file to Complainant’s new counsel.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Complainant contended that the Respondent was paid $1,000.00 to file an appearance in the real estate matter and that the total amount for his representation was not to exceed $1,750.00. The Complainant further contended that with regard to the medical malpractice matter the Respondent never advised her to obtain an “expert dental witness”. The Complainant testified that she did provide the Respondent with a report from another doctor.

The Respondent claimed that the Complainant’s real estate matter consisted of two huge files weighing twenty-two pounds and involving in excess of one hundred and fifty separate pleadings, court orders, briefs, motions, and other documents. The Respondent further claimed that he estimates that his office spent in excess of fifty hours on the Complainant’s real estate matter. The Respondent indicated that he was unable to file an answer to the grievance complaint because of personal medical problems.

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

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent’s conduct in connection with his representation of the Complainant in the review of documents relative to a real estate matter and a medical malpractice matter involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to adequately communicate to the Complainant the scope of the representation and the objectives of the representation in violation of Rules 1.4 and 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s requests for information regarding the status of the dental matter in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the Respondent anticipated providing a written fee agreement to the Complainant upon the determination of whether the Complainant had a viable claim, the reviewing committee is critical of the Respondent’s lack of a fee agreement from the commencement of the investigation. This reviewing committee finds that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to substantiate a finding of a violation by the Respondent of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). Notwithstanding, since we conclude that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we reprimand the Respondent.

__________________________________
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.

___________________________________
Attorney Noble F. Allen

___________________________________
Professor Paul Hawkshaw