STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Benita Bryan, Complainant vs. John Newton, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0512A

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, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on July 9, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 10, 1996, and the determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on February 10, 1997, finding probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on May 19, 1997. The Complainant appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. The Respondent also appeared and testified. This reviewing committee also heard testimony from Attorney James Altham. An exhibit was received into evidence.

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

The Complainant was a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit filed in the Hartford Judicial District sometime in 1993. During 1996, the Respondent was retained by the Complainant to represent her regarding the personal injury matter. The Respondent replaced the Complainant's previous attorney. In or around November of 1996, the Complainant and the Respondent had a disagreement over whether or not the Complainant should settle the matter. The Respondent thereafter filed a withdrawal of the plaintiff's action without her consent or authority. The Complainant retained new counsel, who filed a motion in an attempt to restore the matter to the docket. As of the date of the hearing on this grievance complaint, the court had scheduled a hearing on the motion, and had instructed the Respondent to appear at the hearing.

Sometime prior to the date that the Respondent filed the withdrawal, a defendant in the personal injury case filed a motion for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00), alleging that the Complainant and the defendant had entered into a verbal agreement to settle the case for that amount. The Complainant denied agreeing to settle for that amount. Although he was the attorney of record for the Complaiant as of the date that the matter was to be considered by the court, the Respondent failed to appear in court to contest the motion. In or around December of 1996, apparently in spite of the withdrawal filed by the Respondent, the motion for judgment was granted.

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to act with reasonable diligence in his handling of the Complainant's personal injury matter. The Complainant failed to appear in court to contest the defendant's motion for judgment in the matter. Rather than\ pursuing his client's claim in a zealous manner, the Complainant attempted to withdraw his client's personal injury case without her authority. This reviewing committee notes that the Respondent's actions in this regard also violated Rule 1.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to consult with the Complainant regarding his withdrawal of the lawsuit, and accordingly, we find clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In light of the potentially serious ramifications to the Complainant's claim which could have resulted from the Respondent's conduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee order the Respondent to be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore C. DePiano