STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Deborah F. Winther, Complainant vs. Maureen A. Chmielecki, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0480

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly- appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on August 14, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on December 11, 1995 and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 and 17 Grievance Panel that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.5 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 8, 1996. At the hearing on August 14, 1996, the Complainant and the Respondent did not appear.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:

The Complainant engaged the Respondent's firm to represent her in connection with a divorce. The writ, summons and complaint were forwarded to the sheriff by cover letter dated July 24, 1995. The matter was returned to the court on August 28, 1995. Pursuant to the request of Attorney Diana, the Respondent met with both parties in an effort to negotiate an agreement. The basis for an agreement was reached. Subsequent to the meeting, the Complainant contacted the Respondent with modifications to the negotiated agreement. After drafting the proposed agreement, a copy was hand-delivered to Attorney Diana for review. Subsequently, by letter to the Respondent dated October 30, 1995, the Complainant discharged the Respondent and requested copies of the file and a refund of the $1250.00 retainer. The Respondent departed from the firm in September of 1995. Despite numerous telephone calls by the Complainant, an accounting was not forwarded. Ultimately, the Complainant proceeded pro se.

The Complainant did not receive an accounting or copies of her file. The firm cashed the Complainant's checks totalling $1250.00.

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

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in connection with her representation of the Complainant in a divorce matter involves a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to return the Complainant's file upon termination of the representation in violation of Rule 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with an accounting of fees paid upon termination of the representation in violation of Rules 1.5 and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct breached ethical standards. This reviewing committee recommends that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Alfred Belinkie

Attorney Salvatore DePiano

Mr. Neal Jewell