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 April 9, 2003. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on September 24, 2002, and the probable cause determination filed by the Danbury Judicial District Grievance Panel on January 23, 2003, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a) and (b) 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 March 3, 2003. Both the Complainant and the Respondent appeared at the hearing and testified.

Attorney Dominick Rutigliano, a member of this reviewing committee, was not available for the hearing. Both the Complainant and the Respondent waived the participation of Attorney Rutigliano in this decision. Accordingly, this decision is rendered by the undersigned.

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

The Respondent represented the Complainant in the sale of his business in 1990. In the course of his representation, the Respondent was to arrange for the recording of a mortgage in New York to protect the Complainant. The mortgage was not recorded. The Respondent did not communicate to the Complainant his failure to arrange for the recording of the mortgage. The Respondent did not file an answer to this grievance complaint and did not demonstrate good cause for failing to file an answer.

This reviewing committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Practice Book by clear and convincing evidence:

The Respondent’s failure to arrange for the recording of the mortgage in New York to protect the Complainant constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s failure to communicate to the Complainant his failure to record the mortgage constitutes a violation of Rules 1.4(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s failure to file an answer to this grievance complaint without good cause constitutes a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). Accordingly, we reprimand the Respondent.

                                              
Attorney Raymond B. Rubens

                                              
Mr. Thomas J. McKiernan