Connecticut: Attorney Convicted of Larceny in the First Degree by Embezzlement

Link for opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1141851.html

In State v. Ankerman 81 Conn. App. 503; 840 A.2d 1182 (Conn. 2004), the Connecticut Appellate Court
convicted an attorney of larceny in the first degree by embezzlement for checks being drawn out of a client’s trust account payable to himself or to his practice.

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court’s conclusions that the attorney convicted a crime of larceny in the first degree by embezzlement in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119(1) and 53a-122(a)(2).

On July 6, 1998, the attorney wrote a letter to the statewide grievance committee, in which he admitted to overdrawing the legal fees account and characterized his conduct as wrongdoing. The committee then commenced a complaint against the attorney and presented it to the Superior Court. After a hearing, the court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for three years. This court recently affirmed the suspension. See Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ankerman, 74 Conn.App. 464, 812 A.2d 169, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 911, 821 A.2d 767 (2003). On April 8, 1999, the attorney testified before a grievance panel that he was deeply sorry that he breached his duty as an attorney after jury trial defendant was convicted and sentenced.

The attorney has raised twelve issues in his brief which several claims of error were not preserved properly. He has failed to request review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or the plain error doctrine. See Practice Book § 60-5.  “It is well established that generally this court will not review claims that were not properly preserved in the trial court․ The defendant's failure to address the four prongs of Golding amounts to an inadequate briefing of the issue and results in the unpreserved claim being deemed abandoned․ Finally, because the defendant has neglected to analyze his claim of plain error, he has failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice․ Accordingly, we decline to review his unpreserved claim.”

This case teaches the importance of the attorney’s duty under Rule 8.3(a) 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, that a lawyer knowing of the dishonesty of another lawyer must inform the appropriate disciplinary authority, required that he reports his own dishonesty.