STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Matthew Alexander, Complainant vs. Patricia A. Ayars, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #97-0956

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, 1 Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut on November 12, 1998. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 1, 1998, and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel on August 20, 1998, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on September 23, 1998. 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 is employed as a managing agent for White and Katzman, a property management company employed by the Ivybrook Village Condominium Association. In 1997, Ivybrook Village Condominium Association referred several condominium charge foreclosure matters to the Respondent. The Complainant made requests on behalf of Ivybrook Village Condominium Association for updates on the progress of the foreclosure matters in letters dated January 7, 1998 and March 4, 1998. On March 31, 1998, the Complainant advised the Respondent that the Ivybrook Village Condominium Association desired a return of its files, as they were dissatisfied with the Respondent's services. The Respondent failed to return subsequent telephone calls from the Complainant concerning a return of the files. While the Respondent claimed in her answer to the complaint that she intended to retain the files until her fees were paid in full, it appears that the Respondent never advised the Complainant or the Association of her position concerning the files prior to the filing of the instant complaint.

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of its matters by failing to respond in an adequate manner to her client's requests for its files made through their agent. The Respondent failed to advise her client or her client's agent that it was her intention to keep the files to protect her fee. If it was the Respondent's position that she was entitled to claim a lien on her client's files to protect her fee, she was required to promptly notify the client or its agent of her position to allow them to take necessary steps to protect their interests. Her failure to do so until after this grievance was filed violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We do not find a violation of Rule 1.16. However, because we find a violation of Rule 1.4, the Respondent is hereby reprimanded.

____________________________________
Attorney Kerry A. Tarpey

___________________________________
Attorney Thomas Cloutier

____________________________________
Mr. Terence K. Nichols