STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Diana Chatterjee, Complainant vs. Kimberly Simon, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #01-0061

DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 1 Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut on January 10 and May 9, 2002.  The hearings addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 18, 2001, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven  Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 & 8 Grievance Panel on October 23, 2001, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The hearings also addressed the additional probable cause determination issued by the undersigned reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on March 15, 2002, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.4(a) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, following the issuance of a contemplated finding of probable cause on January 30, 2002.

 Notice of the January 10, 2002 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 3, 2001. Notice of the May 9, 2002 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on March 27, 2002.  The Complainant appeared and testified at both hearings.  The Respondent failed to appear at either hearing.

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

The Complainant retained the Respondent in December of 1999 regarding child support and visitation issues arising out of her marital dissolution case.  The Respondent filed an appearance in the matter in lieu of the Complainant’s prior counsel, and filed a few motions in January of 2000.  Thereafter, the Respondent often failed to return telephone calls from the Complainant.  From May through July of 2000, the Respondent was winding down her law practice and moving to New Jersey.  The Complainant’s matter was to be the Respondent’s last case.  However, the Complainant did not learn of this until the Respondent had already moved to New Jersey.  In June of 2000, the Respondent signed a visitation agreement on the Complainant’s behalf which was contrary to the Complainant’s instructions regarding the length of the visitation on weekends.  This was not corrected until August 14, 2000.  Subsequently, the Complainant complained of the Respondent’s failure to accomplish the objectives of the representation and it became necessary for the Complainant to retain new counsel in the case, which was done in March of 2001.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent’s signing of a visitation agreement in June of 2000 which included terms directly contrary to the Complainant’s wishes constitutes a failure to abide by a client’s decision, in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Respondent also failed to reasonably communicate with the Complainant during the time in which she was moving to New Jersey, in violation of Rule 1.4(a).  This reviewing committee is also critical of the Respondent’s level of diligence in this matter, and of her failure to timely inform the Complainant of her plans to leave the practice of law, but does not find that the Respondent’s conduct in this regard rises to the level of a violation of either Rule 1.3 or 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Accordingly, the Respondent is reprimanded for violating Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

___________________________________
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.

___________________________________
Attorney Lorraine Eckert

___________________________________
Ms. Mary Ellen Smith