STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Everett Dunn, Doris Dunn, Nicholas Dunn, Complainants vs. Robert T. Stewart, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #97-0385

DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book '2-35, the undersigned, duly appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on July 8, 1998. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on November 3, 1997, and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford/New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Area 12, 15, 16 & 17 Grievance Panel on January 26, 1998, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainants and to the Respondent on May 28, 1998. The Complainant Nicholas Dunn and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee.

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

The Respondent acted as a fiduciary of the Estate of Kris M. Dunn (hereinafter,"Dunn Estate"). The Respondent commingled personal funds in his clients' trust account. The Respondent permitted his fees to remain in the clients' fund account rather that writing a check for such fees. The Respondent failed to keep the Complainants reasonably informed regarding the status of the Dunn Estate. The Respondent failed to adequately respond to the Complainants repeated telephone calls to his office requesting information regarding Dunn Estate matters. At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent admitted a lack of diligent communication with the Complainants.

This reviewing committee also considered the following:

In grievance complaint #95-0892, Faccadio v. Stewart the Respondent was reprimanded for failing to keep his personal funds separate from his clients' funds and for commingling both in his clients' trust account in connection with a fact pattern similar to the subject complaint.

The Respondent contended that he advanced legal fees from the Dunn Estate prior to final probate court approval. At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent admitted commingling funds but denied using clients' funds for personal expenses. The Respondent testified that grievance complaint #95-0892, Faccadio v. Stewart involved the subject Dunn Estate and the same funds and account. The Respondent claimed that the final accounting was ultimately approved by the Complainants and the probate court. The Respondent further claimed that he experienced "traumatic personal problems which prevented him from being as communicative and prompt as the Complainants would have liked."

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

This reviewing committee notes that the Statewide Grievance Committee has addressed the Respondent's conduct relative to Rule 1.15 in grievance complaint #95-0892, Faccadio v. Stewart, where the Respondent was reprimanded for failing to keep his personal funds separate from his clients' funds and commingling both in his clients' trust account in violation Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and former Practice Book '27(a). This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent's conduct in handling the probate of the Dunn Estate involved a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent failed to respond to the Complainants' telephone calls and failed to keep the Complainants reasonably informed regarding the status of the estate in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's lack of communication was inconsistent with ethical standards. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we reprimand the Respondent. 

Attorney Alfred Belinkie 

Attorney Lewis Hurwitz