Connecticut Attorney Appeals Three Grievances by Statewide Grievance Committee

In Francis Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee 2009 Conn. Super. Lexis 1540, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford decided in three cases filed with the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee against Attorney Francis Miniter. In all three cases the Statewide Grievance Committee found that the alleged violations had been proven.
Grievances alleged that Miniter violated the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. In the first case (Docket No. CV 07 4029199) Miniter was reprimanded for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. In this grievance, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Miniter failed to provide the complainant with a written fee agreement, accepted $1,500 to represent her, and then fail to appear on the scheduled date. He also failed to return her calls after her case was dismissed. Miniter appealed, asserting that his rights to due process were violated.
The appellant argued that the Grievance Committee failed to grant him a continuance because Miniter was appearing to argue another case. He was not granted the continuance due to his not following the prescribed rules for requesting the continuance. Motions for the continuance require a request form JD-GC-17 to be filed at least seven days prior to the date of the hearing. Not only did he fail to file the needed document, but his motion for continuance was filed only the day preceding the hearing. Based on Miniter’s failure to comply with the rules for a continuance, the Statewide Grievance found that there was no violation of due process.
The Court noted: “While it is clear that the appellant has a vested property interest entitling him to due process, this court’s difficulty with the appellant’s claim of prejudice is the extent to which it was self-imposed. More troubling still is the fact that the underlying allegations before the grievance committee related to his client’s claims that he failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in his dealing with her, in violation of Rule 1.3, and her claims that he failed to communicate with her, in violation of Rule 4.1. In this context, his failure to file a timely motion for continuance and to comply with reasonable requests for information so that the grievance committee can fairly assess his request for continuance is not de minimis.”
In the second case (Docket No. CV 07 4030204), the Grievance Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Miniter violated rule 8.1(2) of the Professional Rules of Conduct and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). The matter was reported to the Grievance Committee by Bank of America when the appellant’s client funds account was overdrawn. When contacted by the Committee about the overdraft, Miniter initially responded but failed to respond to multiple attempts by the Committee to follow up. The appellant stated that he was involved in an extensive trial and did not receive further communications. There is no evidence that the notifications were mailed to an incorrect address.
The appellant asserts that it wasn’t a lawful demand and that it was beyond the scope of reasonable inquiry, but there was no documentation for the assertion. The court rejected this claim due to an absence of authority for it.
The appellant further asserted that the evidence didn’t show that the letter was mailed, relying on Daniels v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 72 Conn. App. 203, 804 A.2d 1027 (2002). He claimed that the Committee wasn’t entitled to make the assumption that the appellant had notice. The court noted, “It is clear from Daniels that these self-serving assertions are simply not enough to overcome the presumption that he received this correspondence.” The Committee concluded that he had violated the rules by failing to respond to a grievance complaint.
In the third case (Docket No. CV 08 4037292), the Committee issued a reprimand by clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule1.4 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct. The appellant received $3,000 of a $5,000 retainer agreement in which the client agreed that the attorney would receive compensation based on expenses and time spent on the case, in the event that the client terminated the litigation. The client decided not to pursue litigation and sent a letter to the attorney to that effect and requesting that his funds be returned. Miniter failed to respond to the correspondence and multiple phone calls from his client. The client filed a grievance at which time Miniter prepared a statement of account and refunded $1,230.
Miniter answered by saying that he believed that his staff had returned the complainant’s phone call to discuss the matter. The client denies receiving any such call. Miniter also noted that he was having computer problems at the time and was unable to provide a final accounting.
The appellant claims his due process rights were violated because the reviewing committee took into account other proceedings against Miniter. He also claimed that he was denied the right to present his secretary as a witness at the proceedings.
On his first claim in this matter, the reviewing committee was notified of other grievances because under Practice Book §2-47(d) an action involving a respondent with at least three disciplinary actions within five years triggers a presentment. The court stated that “Given this authority, which the appellant fails to address, this court is not persuaded by claims that record of his grievances were improperly before the committee.”
On Miniter’s second claim, it was noted that the committee had even shown an interest that Miniter present his secretary to determine the need for further testimony. The court record showed that Miniter made no attempt to submit evidence or testimony from his secretary.
In conclusion, the Court rejected the appeal of all three cases and affirmed the decision of the reviewing committee of the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee. It is interesting to note that the same attorney was involved in other similar complaints over a period of years prior to this appeal for complaints 06-0577, 06-0323, and 07-0484. The other complaints were as follows: 09-0040 Davis, Moore, Ayers & Weaver v. Miniter, 08-0154 Wright v. Miniter, 08-0768 Gale v. Miniter, 06-0262 Town of Hartford v. Miniter, and 05-0317A Diana DeGiacomo-Canellas v. Miniter.