STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Neil A. Palker, Complainant vs. Haiman Long Clein, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0566

PROPOSED DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on January 8, 1997 and May 1, 1997. The hearings addressed the record of the complaint filed on January 12, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Middlesex Judicial District Grievance Panel on February 7, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearings on January 8, 1997 and May 1, 1997 were mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on November 27, 1996 and March 20, 1997 respectively. A hearing scheduled for March 6, 1997 did not go forward. At the hearing on January 8, 1997, the Complainant did not appear. At the hearing on January 8, 1997, the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. At the hearing on May 1, 1997, the Respondent did not appear. At the hearing on January 8, 1997, the Complainant appeared and testified. An exhibit was admitted into evidence.

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

The Respondent was retained to represent the Complainant in claiming stock sales distribution proceeds. In connection with the representation, the Respondent negotiated a settlement. Pursuant to a verbal agreement, the Respondent was to receive a maximum fee of $3,500.00. The Respondent's $3,500.00 fee was paid by the Complainant. The Respondent received a check for $4,873.15 as attorney for the Complainant relative to the settlement agreement for distribution to the Complainant. The Complainant never received the check. The Respondent could not account for the distribution of the $4,873.15.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

The Respondent testified that a substantial portion of the settlement funds might have been applied to outstanding fees.

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 representing the Complainant relative to a stock sale matter involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent received a settlement check as attorney for the Complainant. The Respondent failed to distribute the settlement funds to the Complainant in violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent did not keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of the settlement in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The reviewing committee did not find clear and convincing evidence in the record of a violation of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and in consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee file a presentment against the Respondent with the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

______________________________

Attorney Robert J. Kor

______________________________

Attorney David A. Curry

_______________________________

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith