STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Darius Miller, Complainant vs. Mark Warren, Respondent:
Grievance Complaint #01-0076
Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut on December 5, 2001. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 23, 2001, and the probable cause determination filed by the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel on September 5, 2001, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, and 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).
Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on November 1, 2001. The Respondent’s hearing notice was returned not deliverable; unable to forward by the post office. The Respondent has not registered with the Statewide Grievance Committee since 1997. The Respondent was disbarred in 1999. The Complainant appeared at the hearing before this reviewing committee and testified.
This reviewing committee makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence:
The Complainant retained the Respondent in 1997 to defend him in a criminal case. The Complainant paid the Respondent a five hundred dollar ($500.00) retainer for his legal services. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent failed to call trial witnesses or investigate the case against the Complainant. The Complainant further alleged that the Respondent failed to honor his request to file appropriate motions, preserve certain issues for appeal, and conduct a proper jury voir dire. The Respondent did not file an answer to this grievance complaint. The Respondent has not kept the Statewide Grievance Committee apprised of his mailing address.
This reviewing committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence:
The Respondent’s failure to answer this grievance complaint as a result of his failure to respond to the Statewide Grievance Committee’s lawful demand for Attorney Registration information constitutes a violation of Rule 8.1(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book § 2-32(a)(1). The Respondent’s failure to provide competent representation to the Complainant constitutes a violation of Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, we reprimand the Respondent.
Attorney Carl Fortuna, Jr.
Attorney Christopher B. Carveth
Professor Paul Hawkshaw