STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Melvin Alberts, Complainant  vs. Martin Stillman, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #96-0741

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on November 12, 1997 and January 4, 1998. The hearings addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 6, 1997, and the probable cause determination filed by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on June 19, 1997, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee's probable cause determination was contrary to the determination of no probable cause filed by the Hartford/New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel on April 18, 1997.

Notice of the hearings were mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on September 25, 1997 and December 2, 1997. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee.

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

In September of 1994, the Complainant paid the Respondent a $2,500.00 retainer for representation in connection with an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") matter. The Respondent had not regularly represented the Complainant prior to being retained in connection with the ADA claim. The Respondent did not communicate to the Complainant, in writing, the basis or rate of the fee or scope of the representation. The Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with a written fee agreement.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

In an answer to the complaint, the Respondent contended that he was retained to research the Complainant's matter to determine if there was a discrimination case under the ADA. The Respondent further claimed that he spent more than eighty-one hours on the Complainant's matter including seventeen separate meetings with the Complainant, research, several hours of court time and meetings with another attorney. The Respondent claimed that ultimately the Complainant was informed of the Respondent's opinion that he did not have a viable case.

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent admitted that he did not provide a written fee agreement to the Complainant. The Respondent testified that the terms of the retainer were disclosed to the Complainant. The Complainant contended that the $2,500.00 retainer was for the specific purpose of bringing the action under the ADA. The Complainant further alleged that the Respondent failed to diligently pursue his case. The Complainant testified that the Respondent did not send any bills or an itemized time record to the Complainant.

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in representing the Complainant in connection with an ADA matter involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to communicate in writing to the Complainant the basis or rate of his fee and the scope of the representation in violation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the Respondent did not provide a written fee agreement, the reviewing committee noted the Respondent's representation regarding time spent on the Complainant's matter. The record lacked clear and convincing evidence to substantiate a finding of a violation of Rule 1.3. Since we conclude, however, that the Respondent violated Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we recommend the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney Lewis A. Hurwitz

Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan