STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Lester Cohen, Complainant vs. Leonard Lieman, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #95-0894

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on January 2, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on May 3, 1996, and the probable cause determination filed by the Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on June 27, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing also addressed a probable cause determination rendered by a reviewing committee of Attorney Suzanne Powers and Mr. Carmen Donnarumma rendered subsequent to their initial hearing on the complaint on October 3, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to appear at the October 3, 1996 hearing in spite of having been subpoenaed to do so.

Notice of the October 3, 1996 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and the Respondent on August 29, 1996. As previously noted, the Respondent was subpoenaed and served in-hand on September 26, 1996 to appear at the October 3, 1996 hearing. The Respondent did not appear on October 3, 1996. Notice of the January 2, 1997 hearing was mailed to the Complainant and the Respondent on November 27, 1996. On December 17, 1996, the Respondent was served in-hand with a subpoena to appear at the January 2, 1997 hearing. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared at the January 2, 1997 hearing.

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

The Complainant, the President of Cleaners Sales and Equipment of Brooklyn, New York, utilized the services of the Respondent as his personal and business attorney for several years. On behalf of his company, the Complainant retained the Respondent to bring a civil action for payment of goods sold to Samitch, Inc. in or about 1989. The Respondent filed a civil action against Samitch, Inc. in the Superior Court for the Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District on or about April 12, 1989. The matter was assigned Docket No. CV89-0100200S. Subsequent to filing the civil action, the Respondent informed the Complainant that he had obtained a judgment in favor of the Complainant's business and was attempting to have the judgment satisfied. The Complainant later learned that the civil action had been dismissed for lack of action on the part of the Respondent. The Complainant attempted unsuccessfully to learn from the Respondent whether the Respondent settled the action and failed to remit the settlement proceeds to the Complainant or allowed the case to be dismissed without pursuing it.

The Respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint nor, as previously noted, appear at either of the two hearings held by reviewing committees of the Statewide Grievance Committee.

It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct. At a minimum, there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to respond to the Complainant's reasonable requests for information regarding the outcome of his company's lawsuit against Samitch, Inc., and Rule 8.4(d) by twice failing to respond to a lawfully issued and properly served subpoena. In the latter regard, the Respondent has also violated Rule 8.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is our opinion that there also exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated either Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to properly pursue the Complainant's cause of action or that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by settling the Complainant's civil action and failing to remit to the Complainant the funds to which he was entitled. In view of the seriousness of the violations of the above-cited Rules of Professional Conduct and the failure of the Respondent to respond to our lawful demands for information regarding the complaint, it is our recommendation that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

Attorney Alfred R. Belinkie

Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O'Keefe

Mr. Carmen Donnarumma