STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Joseph Meliti, Jr., Complainant vs. Dean Mendelson, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #02-0613
Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on May 6, 2003. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 20, 2002, and the probable cause determination filed by the Danbury Grievance Panel on March 17, 2003, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(4) 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 28, 2003. The Complainant, represented by Attorney Stewart M. Casper, appeared at the hearing and testified. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing.
This reviewing committee makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence:
On January 10, 2000, the Superior Court entered judgment in accordance with a stipulation of the parties in Joseph Meliti, Jr. v. Dean Mendelson, CV94-0140402S. Pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into by the Complainant and the Respondent in the Superior Court action, the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant the sum of $30,000 within ninety days. The Respondent initially made payments totaling approximately $1,000 towards the outstanding judgment prior to September, 2000. The Respondent has not made any further payments toward the outstanding judgment to the Complainant.
is employed as a hearing officer for the Bronx County Family Court in
This reviewing committee finds the following violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
The Respondent has not shown good cause for his failure to make any payment towards the outstanding judgment since 2000. The Respondent’s failure to make any payment towards the outstanding court judgment against him in Meliti v. Mendelson since 2000 while being employed constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Since the Respondent’s response was dated before the determination of probable cause, we decline to find a violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). However, since we do find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we order that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court may deem appropriate.
Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O’Keefe
Attorney Frederick W. Krug
Ms. Johanna Kimball