STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

The Honorable John R. Downey, Complainant vs. Samuel E. Dixon, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #01-0049

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, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on December 12, 2001.  The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 16, 2001, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Area 6 Grievance Panel on October 24, 2001, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(3) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on November 9, 2001.  Both the Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified at the hearing.

This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

As of July 5, 2001, the Respondent’s license to practice law in the State of Connecticut was under suspension.  Nonetheless, on that day, the Respondent appeared at the Geographical Area 6 criminal court in New Haven before the Complainant, a Judge of the Superior Court, and attempted to enter his appearance as an attorney for an acquaintance, Mr. Alido Delrosario, in three separate criminal matters involving Mr. Delrosario.  The Respondent prepared written appearances for each of Mr. Delrosario’s matters and specifically told the Complainant, “your honor, I’m appearing today in lieu of another lawyer that I am trying to get in here.”  The Respondent thereafter attempted to enter a plea on behalf of Mr. Delrosario.

After the Respondent attempted to enter a plea for Mr. Delrosario, the Assistant State’s Attorney present in court that day, Attorney Patrice Palombo, brought to the Complainant’s attention the fact that the Respondent was suspended from the practice of law.  At that point, the Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the Respondent’s actions and indicated to him, among other things, that he would report his conduct to the Statewide Grievance Committee.  This complaint followed.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

In his answer to the grievance complaint and in his testimony before this reviewing committee, the Respondent stated that he informed Attorney Palombo that he was suspended from the practice of law and was only attempting to have Mr. Delrosario’s matter continued to another date.

This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent’s actions in court on July 5, 2001 violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.  There is no dispute that the Respondent’s license to practice law in the State of Connecticut was suspended on July 5, 2001.  Although he knew his license was under suspension, the Respondent nonetheless appeared in court on behalf of another individual and attempted to engage in the practice of law and to hold himself out as an attorney to the Complainant.  We conclude that the Respondent’s attempt to hold himself out as an attorney before the Complainant was misleading and dishonest, in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  We also conclude that the Respondent’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  This reviewing committee concludes that in light of the Respondent’s misconduct, he be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

___________________________________
Attorney Raymond B. Rubens

___________________________________
Attorney Rita A. Steinberger

                                                          
Reverend Meredith Payton