David Manko, Complainant
vs. Frances J. Ficarra, Respondent
Grievance
Complaint #03-0442
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, 80 Washington Street,
Hartford, Connecticut on May 6, 2004.
The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on November 21,
2003, and the probable cause determination filed by the Fairfield Judicial
District Grievance Panel on January 15, 2004, finding that there existed
probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 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 29,
2004. The Complainant appeared at the
hearing and gave testimony, represented by Attorney Ira Grudberg. The Respondent did not appear.
Reviewing
committee member Attorney Kathleen Stingle was not available for the
hearing. Since the Complainant waived
Attorney Stingle’s participation, this decision was rendered by the
undersigned.
This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and
convincing evidence:
The Complainant was injured in an automobile accident on May
5, 1997. The Respondent was retained to
bring an action on the Complainant’s behalf.
The Respondent filed the lawsuit on or about May 5, 1999. The defendant in the action filed discovery
requests, which the Respondent never answered.
On March 29, 2000, the lawsuit was dismissed for failure to answer the
defendant’s discovery requests. The
Respondent did not move to reopen the file nor did he seek to reinstitute the
lawsuit under the accidental failure of suit statute. The Respondent never informed the
Complainant that the lawsuit had been
dismissed. On a number of occasions and
as recently as early in 2003, the Respondent told the Complainant that the case was still pending.
The Respondent did not file an answer to
the grievance complaint.
This reviewing committee concludes by
clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct. In allowing the
lawsuit to be dismissed, and not reopening or reinstituting it, the Respondent
failed to act with reasonable competence or diligence, in violation of Rules
1.1 and 1.3, respectively, of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to communicate to the
Complainant the actual status of the claim, in violation of Rule 1.4 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct. The
Respondent’s failure to take any action in the matter or inform the Complainant
as to its status over a period of approximately three years also constitutes
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule
8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Respondent’s failure to answer the grievance complaint constitutes a
violation of Practice Book §2-32(a)(1).
It is the decision of this reviewing
committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for the
imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate. Since the presentment will be a trial de
novo, it is further ordered that the presentment complaint contain a charge
that the Respondent misrepresented the status of the matter to the Complainant,
in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Attorney Geoffrey Naab
Dr. Frank G. Regan