STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Wafek Abdelsayed, Complainant vs. William E. Hill, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #98-1060

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, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on December 2, 1999. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on June 14, 1999, and the probable cause determination filed by the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Areas 7 and 8 Grievance Panel on September 16, 1999, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on November 2, 1999. At the hearing the Complainant and the Respondent appeared and testified before this reviewing committee.

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

In April of 1994 a jury verdict entered in the Complainant’s favor in the amount of $15,000.00 plus costs in connection with a defamation action litigated in the New Haven Superior Court, Abdelsayed v. Narumanchi, Docket #CV89-0287047S. The Respondent handled the collection of the Complainant’s judgement. The Defendant in the civil action filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Respondent failed to file the required adversary proceeding in bankruptcy by the due date established by the bankruptcy court. On or about September 12, 1997 an order issued from the bankruptcy court releasing the defendant from all dischargeable debts. The Respondent assured the Complainant that he could file a motion to reopen to file the required adversary proceeding. Subsequently in a number of telephone communications, the Respondent assured the Complainant that he had filed the motion to reopen. During the period of March, 1998 to November, 1998, the Complainant had several telephone communications with the Respondent during which he inquired about the status of the court’s decision relative to the motion to reopen. The Respondent indicated that he had not received a response from the court. Subsequently the Complainant learned that the Respondent did not file the motion to reopen. The Complainant demanded that the Respondent notify his malpractice carrier. The Respondent indicated to the Complainant that he had malpractice insurance when he did not.

  This reviewing committee also considered the following:

At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent contended that he was unintentionally negligent and that he erroneously assumed that filing a statement of claim was equivalent to filing an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy to protect the Complainant’s interests. The Respondent further testified that he prepared and mistakenly presumed to have filed the motion to reopen. The Respondent further testified that he was suffering from health issues that impacted his proper handling of the Complainant’s file. The Respondent represented that he was willing to compensate the Complainant for his negligent handling of the case.

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

This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in handling collection of the Complainant’s case, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to timely file the adversary proceeding and motion to reopen. The Respondent failed to act with reasonable competence, in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to file the correct adversary proceeding documents. The Respondent failed to adequately and accurately communicate with the Complainant regarding the status of the case in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent misrepresented to the Complainant that he had filed a motion to reopen when he failed to do so and that he had malpractice insurance when he did not in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee concludes that there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee notes that although Rule 8.4(3) was not cited in the probable cause determination this reviewing committee is of the opinion that in a de novo proceeding it is important for the court to be apprised of all the relevant facts. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and in light of the seriousness of the ethical breach, we order that a presentment be filed against the Respondent to the Superior Court for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate.

____________________________________
Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O’Keefe

___________________________________
Attorney Frederick Krug

____________________________________
Ms. Johanna Kimball