STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Robert M. Lane, Complainant vs. H. Chester Grant, Respondent

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 January 22, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on March 8, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 3.1, 3.9 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 17, 1996. At the hearing on August 14, 1996, the Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee.

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

In October of 1995, the Respondent contacted the Complainant and requested that the Complainant represent his client Lauren McWilliams and her husband James McWilliams in connection with the sale of their home. A divorce proceeding was pending between Mr. and Mrs. McWilliams. Attorney Livia Barndollar represented Mr. McWilliams in the divorce action. The Respondent represented Mrs. McWilliams in the divorce matter. The Complainant agreed to represent both parties in the real estate transaction. The retainer agreement executed by Mr. McWilliams and by the Respondent on behalf of Mrs. McWilliams authorized the Complainant to hold the net closing proceeds in escrow pending the court's decision in the divorce proceedings. The closing occurred on October 27, 1995. Subsequently, the court's decision issued awarding $20,000.00 to Mr. McWilliams and the balance to Mrs. McWilliams. The decision also provided that Mrs. McWilliams was to be solely responsible for a pending small claims action relative to a lawn service.

On November 16, 1995, the Respondent contacted the Complainant and notified him of the Court's decision and that he would come to the Complainant's office to pick up a check for $13,584.73 representing his claimed fee in the divorce matter. Upon the Respondent's arrival at the Complainant's office, the Complainant informed the Respondent that he would issue a check for $13,584.73 upon receipt from Mrs. McWilliams of a letter authorizing the payment of such a fee together with a waiver of the appeal period from both parties. The Respondent departed the Complainant's office and returned the following day, and remained in the

Complainant's office from about 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., when the office closed. The Respondent insisted that the Complainant should disburse the funds. The Respondent returned to the Complainant's office on the following Monday and again spent the entire day at the Complainant's office insisting upon immediate payment of his fee.

On November 21, 1995, the Complainant received a fax of a letter from the Respondent addressed to Daniel B. Horwitch at the Statewide Grievance Committee purporting to file a grievance complaint against the Complainant for refusing to disburse the funds. The Complainant, thereafter, wrote a response to Attorney Horwitch. Thereafter, the Complainant received a letter from Statewide Bar Counsel Daniel B. Horwitch returning his response and advising that the Statewide Grievance Committee did not receive a November 21, 1995 letter or complaint from the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent purported to commence a civil action against the Complainant alleging that the Respondent retained the Complainant to represent him and that the Complainant breached their retainer agreement. Further, the Complainant received a grievance complaint allegedly signed by Mrs. McWilliams and a writ and summons allegedly by Mrs. McWilliams.

The reviewing committee also considered the following:

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent indicated that effective May 3, 1996, he was no longer licensed to practice law in the state of Connecticut. The Respondent further indicated that his temporary license was not renewed.

The 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 his efforts to obtain the disbursement of legal fees from the Complainant relative to a civil matter involves a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's conduct in purporting to initiate grievance and civil proceedings against the Complainant for allegedly refusing to disburse Respondent's legal fees constitutes an abuse of process in violation of Rules 8.4(d) and 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee file a presentment against the Respondent to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

____________________________________

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

____________________________________

Mr. Neal Jewell