STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Christopher L. Morano, Deputy Chief State’s Attorney, Complainant vs. Earl Williams, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #98-0663A
Christopher L. Morano, Deputy Chief State’s Attorney, Complainant vs. Randall Chapnick, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #98-0663B
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 on October 14, 1999, January 13, 2000, and October 11, 2000. The hearing addressed the record of the complaints filed on February 11, 1999, and the probable cause determinations filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Area 6 Grievance Panel on July 1, 1999, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondents violated Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Notice of the hearing on October 14, 1999 was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondents on August 26, 1999. Notice of the hearing on January 13, 2000 was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondents on December 3, 1999. On January 13, 2000, the hearing was continued to allow a judge of the Superior Court to rule upon a motion to quash. Notice of the hearing on October 11, 2000 was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondents on August 14, 2000. On February 20, 2001, the Complainant and Respondent Williams submitted Post-Hearing Briefs.
Assistant State’s Attorney David M. Kutzner appeared on behalf of the Complainant at the hearings before this reviewing committee. Respondent Earl Williams appeared at the hearings before this reviewing committee represented by Attorney Max F. Brunswick. Respondent Randall Chapnick appeared at the hearings before this reviewing committee represented by Attorney Frank P. Cannatelli. Attorney Maxine Wilensky, Janice Brubacker, Rita Bacote and Randall Foster testified as witnesses for the Complainant. Neither Respondent elected to testify at the hearings before this reviewing committee. Exhibits were received into evidence.
I find the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
On or about September 8, 1998, Keith Barnes [hereinafter “Barnes”], an alleged victim, executed a general release in consideration of $2,500.00 paid by Randall Foster [hereinafter “Foster”], a criminal defendant, in connection with a certain alleged assault, battery, kidnapping and related criminal charges on or about May 19, 1998 at New Haven, Connecticut. Respondent Chapnick represented Barnes. Respondent Williams represented Foster. In the general release, Barnes agreed to withdraw any claims of criminal conduct allegedly perpetrated upon him by Foster on or about May 19, 1998 at New Haven, Connecticut. Barnes further agreed that in consideration for the payment he would not testify in any court proceedings in any jurisdiction against Foster with respect to the alleged events of May 19, 1998. Nor would he cooperate with any official of the State of Connecticut or the New Haven Police Department with reference to the prosecution of the matter. Respondent Williams and Attorney Jerald Barber, Respondent Williams’ law partner, discussed the release in the presence of Janice Brubacker, Foster’s mother, prior to its execution.
Barnes’ signature was witnessed by Rita Bacote, Respondent Chapnick’s secretary, and acknowledged by Respondent Chapnick. Ms. Bacote typed a cover letter to Respondent Williams from Respondent Chapnick. The executed release and the cover letter requesting that the check be made payable to Respondent Chapnick as trustee was forwarded to Respondent Williams.
Thereafter, Attorney Barber presented Assistant State’s Attorney Maxine Wilensky with a copy of the release at the Foster’s criminal pretrial. Foster thereafter pled guilty to tampering with a witness, in addition to conspiracy to commit assault in the third degree in the underlying case.
I find the following violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence:
The Respondents engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondents knowledge of and participation in the preparation, execution, and acknowledgement of a general release from Barnes in consideration of $2,500.00 from Foster constituted ethical misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by the Superior Court. The release also impeded the victim’s right to testify freely.
Furthermore, the Respondents engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by participating in the execution of the general release providing for payment to an alleged victim in consideration of the alleged victim refusing to testify against the criminal defendant. The Respondents’ violation of Rules 8.4(3) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct also constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, and/or doing so through the acts of another. Accordingly, I vote that the Respondents be presented to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.
____________________________________
Attorney Kerry A. Tarpey
I concur with the above Decision finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondents violated Rules 8.4(1), (3), and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, I find that while Respondent Williams was aware of the release before its execution, I cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that he prepared the release. Accordingly, I vote to present the Respondents to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.
___________________________________
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.
I concur with the above Decision of Attorney Kerry A. Tarpey with respect to Respondent Chapnick finding by clear and convincing evidence that he violated Rules 8.4(1), (3), and (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, I dissent with the above Decision insofar as I cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Williams was aware of or prepared the release. Accordingly, I vote to dismiss this grievance complaint as to Respondent Williams, and I vote to present Respondent Chapnick to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.
Mr. Terrence Nichols