STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Peter Hansen, Complainant vs. Haiman Long Clein, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0707

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, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on February 6, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 6, 1996 and the determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on July 3, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 2.1 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on December 31, 1996. The Complainant appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. The Respondent did not appear.

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

The Complainant paid the Respondent $600.00 for representation in connection with Complainant's divorce modification and pending criminal charges against the Complainant's son. The Respondent failed to act relative to the Complainant's and Complainant's son's matters. The Respondent did not initiate modification proceedings relative to the divorce. The Respondent failed to appear at the Complainant's son's hearings. The Complainant appeared by himself at his son's hearings.

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

The Respondent accepted $600.00 for representation of the Complainant regarding a divorce modification and relative to pending criminal charges against the Complainant's son and then failed to act in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's $600.00 fee was unreasonable in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in consideration of his failure to act. The Respondent effectively terminated his representation and did not refund the Complainant's $600.00 payment in violation of Rules 1.15, 1.16 and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and in consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee file a presentment against the Respondent with the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

_________________________________

Attorney David A. Curry

___________________________________

Attorney Robert J. Kor

___________________________________

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith