JOHN W. MILLS v. STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, SC 21090

Judicial District of Hartford

Attorney Discipline; Whether Appellate Court Properly Upheld Trial Court's Dismissal of Plaintiff's Appeal of Reprimand by Defendant on Basis of Rule 8.2 (a) of Rules of Professional Conduct. The plaintiff attorney was involved in a years-long dispute with Douglas Mahoney, an attorney who had preceded the plaintiff in representing a decedent's estate in a wrongful death action, regarding the proper division of attorney's fees in connection with insurance settlements obtained on behalf of the estate. The Probate Court ordered that the plaintiff pay $40,000 to Mahoney from $66,666.66 that had been set aside from one of the settlements as attorney's fees, and in the plaintiff's appeal from that order, the trial court directed that the plaintiff pay the same amount. The plaintiff subsequently filed an interpleader action in the trial court. The parties reached a settlement, and the plaintiff filed a motion for order requesting the disbursement of funds in accordance with the previously entered payment orders. The plaintiff stated in the motion for order: “While the undersigned genuinely appreciates the sincere efforts of this Court to bring this matter to a close after years of litigation, the plaintiff is nevertheless completely disillusioned and disappointed with the prior judges who have 'heard' this case, and their unwillingness to make any meaningful effort to analyze the facts and the law. Decision after decision was not only legally incorrect, but devoid of any meaningful jurisprudence. The plaintiff has opted to resolve this case solely because it has become apparent that in this instance, for whatever reason, justice is not possible. In 30 years of practice, I have never seen anything like this, where the rules and the law are simply and totally disregarded.” After receiving the motion, the trial court referred the plaintiff to the defendant for investigation. The New Haven Judicial District Panel found probable cause that the plaintiff's statements in his motion for order violated rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part that "[a] lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . ." Rule 8.4 (4) in turn provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . (4) [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . ." The Reviewing Committee likewise found that the plaintiff had violated rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) and reprimanded him. The defendant affirmed the decision of the Reviewing Committee, and the plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal to the trial court. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, finding that the Reviewing Committee's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the plaintiff further had not sustained his burden of providing objective and reasonable proof in support of his statements. The plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Court (228 Conn. App. 852), which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court disagreed with the plaintiff that the defendant's decision that he violated rule 8.2 (a) was contrary to applicable law because a subjective rather than objective standard should have been applied to determine whether he had made the statements knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. The Appellate Court also disagreed with the plaintiff that the defendant's decision that he violated rule 8.2 (a) was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. It noted that the plaintiff's "statements clearly attack . . . judges' competence and alleged faithfulness to the law, thereby attacking the integrity of the Probate Court and the Superior Court" and that the orders with which he took issue had not been challenged or overturned on appeal. The Appellate Court further noted that the plaintiff had not provided proof of an objective and reasonable basis for the statements, rejecting his arguments that the Probate Court and the trial court had committed legal error and that the statements were necessary to provide his reason for settling and to protect himself in the event of future related legal proceedings. Finally, the Appellate Court disagreed with the plaintiff that the defendant abused its discretion in issuing a reprimand and that the trial court should have made specific findings regarding aggravating and mitigating factors under the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and should have concluded that a reprimand was an inappropriate sanction. In this certified appeal by the plaintiff from the Appellate Court's decision, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from his reprimand by the defendant, the Statewide Grievance Committee, on the basis of rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.