STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Warren A. Seavey, Complainant vs. Lawrence Kuranko, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0651

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, 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut, on August 7, 1996. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on February 1, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on May 7, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing also addressed the additional finding of probable cause rendered by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee that the Respondent violated Rule 7.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. While written notice of this additional finding was not mailed to the Respondent prior to the date of the hearing on this matter, the Respondent agreed at the hearing to waive written notice of the same, and therefore, this additional finding has been considered by this reviewing committee.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on July 3, 1996. The Complainant appeared and testified. The Respondent also appeared and testified before this reviewing committee. This reviewing committee also heard the testimony of witnesses Dominick Lato, John Maher, Alex L. Anderson, and Andrew Penny.

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

The Respondent represented a Mr. Dominick Lato regarding a legal matter concerning the sale of horses to an individual by the name of Alexis Castillo, who had failed to pay for the horses. The Complainant also had a claim against Alexis Castillo regarding an unpaid fee for storage of a tractor trailer and maintenance on a vehicle. In the fall of 1994, the Respondent contacted the Complainant and advised him that he had heard of the Complainant's problem with Castillo through another individual. The Respondent offered his services to the Complainant on a contingency fee basis. The Respondent advised the Complainant that he would take care of the matter for him. Thereafter, although the Respondent investigated the Complainant's claim, he did not pursue it. The Respondent never advised the Complainant that he was not pursuing his claim. While the Respondent testified that he believed representing the Complainant would pose a conflict with other clients, he never advised the Complainant of any potential conflict.

This reviewing committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and 1.4(b), and Rule 7.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After initiating telephone contact with the Complainant for the purposes of obtaining employment in violation of Rule 7.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to take any steps to advance the Complainant's claim. His failure to take any action on the claim, other than to perform some initial investigation, evidenced a lack of diligence which violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent never advised the Complainant that he was not pursuing his claim, or of any reason why he could not continue to represent the Complainant, in violation of Rules 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent.

Attorney Lewis A. Hurwitz

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie