Grievance Complaint #98-0416A
Grievance Complaint #98-0416B
Lisa Wilson, Complainant vs. Bruce
Rubenstein, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #98-0417A
Lisa Wilson, Complainant vs. Katherine
Sendy, Respondent
Grievance Complaint #98-0417B
DECISION
Pursuant to
Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the
Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 1
Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut on May 13, 1999, July 19, 2000, September
15, 2000 and March 2, 2001. The hearings
addressed the record of the above-captioned complaints filed on November 19,
1998, and the probable cause determinations filed in each matter by the
Hartford/New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 13 & 14
Grievance Panel on February 5, 1999, finding that there existed probable cause
that the Respondents violated Rules 1.8(e), 7.2(c), and 8.4(a) and (c) (now
8.4(1) and (3)) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Notice of the
May 13, 1999 hearing was mailed to the Complainants and the Respondents on
March 10, 1999. Notice of the July 19,
2000 hearing was mailed to the Complainants and the Respondents on April 7,
2000. Notice of the September 15, 2000
hearing was mailed to the Complainants and the Respondents on July 26, 2000. Notice of the March 2, 2001 hearing was
mailed to the Complainants and the Respondents on January 18, 2001. The Complainants and the Respondents appeared
at the hearings and testified before this reviewing committee with the
following two exceptions. Complainant
Lisa Wilson did not appear at the March 2, 2001 hearing. Respondent Bruce
Rubenstein did not appear at the September 15, 2000 hearing. Hearings scheduled for April 8, 1999, July
28, 1999, September 22, 1999, November 19, 1999, February 23, 2000, and
December 19, 2000 were continued at the Respondents’ request. Reviewing committee member Terrence Nichols
did not attend the May 13, 1999 hearing but reviewed the transcript of the
proceeding prior to participation in this decision. The reviewing committee heard the testimony
of Dr. Austin McCauley, Karen Kato, Yvette Bardox, Virginia Grant, William
Brown, Victoria Craig, Christopher Willoughby, Norma Feeney, Linda Bedrosian,
and Lewis Ferrari. Attorney Stephen
McEleney represented the Complainants.
Attorney Jacob Wieselman represented the Respondents. Exhibits were admitted into evidence. Post-hearing briefs were filed by the
Complainants and the Respondents on July 13, 2001.
This reviewing
committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
The Complainants
are former employees of the law firm of Rubenstein and Sendy (hereinafter, “the
firm”). The Respondents are husband and
wife, and partners in the firm with equity ownership interests. Complainant Lisa Wilson was employed by the
firm between 1993 and 1998 in the position of paralegal. Complainant Regina Canty was initially
employed by the firm in 1995 as a receptionist and then later worked in the
capacity of a paralegal until 1998. During the period of time the Complainants
were employed by the firm, the Respondents made cash payments to the
Complainants and other employees in connection with their solicitation of
business for the Respondents. Fifty
dollar ($50.00) cash payments were made to the Complainants and other employees
by the Respondents for each referral of a case to the firm.
The Respondents
engaged in a practice of advancing transportation expenses to clients for
medical appointments. The Respondents
provided bus tokens and bus passes to clients to facilitate transportation to
medical appointments. The Respondents
made medical advances to clients and to providers for physicians’ treatment,
prescriptions and medical supplies.
This reviewing
committee also considered the following:
The Complainants
alleged that the Respondents fabricated medical histories for clients in
connection with personal injury and workers’ compensation claims. The Complainants further alleged that the
Respondents employed a client, William Brown, who was simultaneously receiving
workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability. The Complainants further alleged that
monetary fees were paid to clients and members of the public who solicited
business for the firm. The Complainants
claimed that the Respondents advanced loans to clients characterized as medical
loan advances.
The Respondents
asserted that the Complainants were discharged from the firm for misconduct and
were unsuccessful in unemployment compensation hearings and in a CHRO
proceeding. The Respondents contended
that they provided bonuses to employees based on a multitude of factors
including their performance, financial need, loyalty to the firm, and in
connection with the referral of a case to the firm. The Respondents further contended that the
firm “paid bonuses on a liberal basis to boost employee morale, reward good
performance and to celebrate holidays.” The Respondents denied paying referral
fees to clients who solicited business for the firm. The Respondents denied providing personal
loans to clients. The Respondents denied
fabricating clients’ medical histories relative to personal injury and workers’
compensation claims. The Respondents
contended that their actions in advancing transportation costs to clients was
within the “costs and expenses of litigation” exception to the Rule 1.8(e)
prohibition against providing financial assistance to a client.
William Brown
testified that he was never on temporary total disability. Attorney Lewis Ferrari, who handled Mr.
Brown’s workers’ compensation claim, testified that Mr. Brown was never on
temporary total disability.
This reviewing
committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
by clear and convincing evidence:
This reviewing
committee concludes that the Respondents provided financial assistance to
clients in connection with pending litigation in violation of Rule 1.8(e) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct by providing bus tokens to clients for
transportation to medical appointments and by making medical advances to
clients and to providers for physicians’ treatment, prescriptions, and medical
supplies. This reviewing committee was
not persuaded by the Respondents’ contention that the advancement of
transportation costs to clients was within the “costs and expenses of
litigation” exception to the Rule 1.8(e) prohibition against providing
financial assistance to clients in connection with contemplated or pending
litigation. This reviewing committee
further concludes that the Respondents made $50.00 cash payments to the
Complainants and other employees for referring cases to the firm in violation
of Rule 7.2(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Although this
reviewing committee finds the Complainants’ testimony credible regarding
employee receipt of referral fees from the Respondents, we find that the record
lacks clear and convincing evidence to substantiate a finding that the
Respondents paid referral fees to clients and other third parties for
soliciting business for the firm. This
reviewing committee further finds that the record lacks clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondents violated Rule 8.4 (a) and (c) (now 8.4(1) and
(3)) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with allegations that
the Respondents fabricated medical histories for clients and employed a client
who was simultaneously receiving temporary total disability payments.
The Respondents
engaged in ethical misconduct. Accordingly, we reprimand the Respondents and
order the Respondents to attend three credit hours of a continuing legal
education course in legal ethics, at their own expense, within six months of
the issuance of this decision. The Respondents are further ordered to provide
the Statewide Grievance Committee with written confirmation of their compliance
with this condition within thirty days of completion of the continuing legal
education course.
___________________________________
Attorney
___________________________________
Attorney Kerry
Tarpey
___________________________________
Mr. Terrence
Nichols