Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes
Decision Date | 19 August 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 35867.,35867. |
Citation | 98 A.3d 852,152 Conn.App. 380 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. Zenas ZELOTES. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Zenas Zelotes, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Suzanne B. Sutton, first assistant chief disciplinary counsel, with whom was Karyl L. Carrasquilla, assistant disciplinary counsel, for the appellee (plaintiff).
BEACH, ALVORD and BEAR, Js.
In this presentment 1 filed by the plaintiff, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, alleging misconduct by the defendant, Attorney Zenas Zelotes, the defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court concluding that he violated rules 1.7(a)(2) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (rule), and ordering that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five months. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court's findings and the record evidence are inadequate to establish a concurrent conflict under rule 1.7(a)(2); (2) the court erred in finding that he violated rule 8.4(4); (3) he was denied due process of law because he did not have fair notice that his conduct could be considered professional misconduct; and (4) the court denied him the benefit of his affirmative defenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which were found by the trial court and which are not contested by the parties, and the court's conclusions in this case, inform our review. “Michael Aliano (Michael) and his wife Terry Aliano (Terry), Connecticut residents, were having some problems in their marriage. On March 19, 2010, they were in New London ... to try to reconcile and were at a jazz bar together. The defendant was there with his girlfriend, Sharon [Wise], and struck up a conversation with the Alianos. The couples exchanged phone numbers and began seeing one another as couples, in a social capacity. The defendant became friendly with Michael and Terry and socialized together as a threesome. Thereafter, in June, 2010, the defendant started seeing Terry alone, going on walks in the park together, going to movies, for drinks and began ‘dating.’
“The defendant had an ‘intimate’ relationship with Terry.... He believed he had an obligation to help her proceed with her divorce, and promote her welfare and make her a happier person. On more than one occasion, their date consisted of sitting close together at the kitchen island in Terry's and Michael's marital home (without the presence of Michael), holding hands, sharing a glass of wine, with candles, music and dimmed lights.... Their first kiss came on such an occasion on September 24, 2010. The defendant filed his appearance on behalf of Terry in the Aliano divorce case three days later on September 27, 2010....
“Sometime in December, 2010, Michael came home earlier than expected ... and the defendant and Terry were again sitting together at the kitchen island with the same ambience and sharing wine. The defendant described Michael's demeanor (not surprisingly) as antagonistic....
“Michael filed a motion in the divorce case to disqualify the defendant from representing Terry in the matter. [The court] Shluger, J., granted the motion on January 24, 2011. After the disqualification, the defendant and Terry ceased their intimate relationship and presumably their ‘dating.’ ...
“The plaintiff's presentment complaint contains several alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. These include [rule] 1.8(j). This section prohibits sexual relations with a client unless the relationship predates the representation. The defendant denies any sexual relations with Terry at any time during their courtship. The court cannot find, one way or the other, on this issue, but focuses rather on rules 1.7(a)(2) and rule 8.4(4)....
“The risk that existed under [rule] 1.7(a)(2) in this case is that their intimacy and the love that the defendant professed for his client might have terminated or its level diminished, bringing into question the future level of competency, diligence and detachment of the defendant. Thus, the court concludes that because of his ‘personal interest,’ the plaintiff has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the violation by the defendant of rule 1.7(a)(2)....
“ The Rules of Professional Conduct also state that a lawyer shall not ‘[e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice’ ... Rules of ProfessionalConduct 8–4(4). The facts show that the defendant knowingly injected himself into the personal life of Terry Aliano, and into the marital status of her and her husband, Michael Aliano. He became more than her friend, but developed an ‘intimate’ relationship with her, and they began to ‘date.’ He encouraged her to go forward with her divorce against Michael ... and filed an appearance on her behalf in lieu of prior counsel. He believed he was looking out for her welfare and would make her a happier person. The court concludes that attorneys in Connecticut and a reasonable general public would regard the defendant's conduct as appalling, and would thoroughly disapprove. The court shares that view. ‘It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice’ ... Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(4). Based on the relevant facts that have been set forth, the court rules that the plaintiff has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(4).
2 Citations omitted; footnotes omitted.) This appeal followed.
The following well established principles govern the relationship between the Superior Court and members of the bar. “The Superior Court possesses inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.... The judiciary has the power to admit attorneys to practice and to disbar them ... to fix the qualifications of those to be admitted ... and to define what constitutes the practice of law.... In the exercise of its disciplinary power, the Superior Court has adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility [now the Rules of Professional Conduct]....
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki, 150 Conn.App. 472, 478–79, 91 A.3d 932 (2014).
“Additionally, because the applicable standard of proof for determining whether an attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct is clear and convincing evidence ... we must consider whether the [fact finder's] decision was based on clear and convincing evidence.” (Citation omitted.) Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296, 322–23, 796 A.2d 516 (2002). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Henry v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 111 Conn.App. 12, 21 n. 9, 957 A.2d 547 (2008). With these principles in mind, we turn to the defendant's claims on appeal.
The defendant claims that the “findings and evidence were inadequate—as a matter of law—to sustain a finding of a ‘concurrent conflict’ under rule 1.7(a)(2).” He asserts that, because he challenges only the propriety of the court's conclusion and not any of the court's factual findings, the appropriate standard of review for this claim is plenary. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey
... ... indicating that some additional documentation had been ... provided to the Statewide Grievance Committee as well as the ... Chief Disciplinary Counsel's office, on which basis the ... then-pending objections to the resignation of respondent were ... withdrawn ... attorney who appears before it. See, e.g., Chief ... Disciplinaty Counsel v. Zelotes , 152 Conn.App. 380, ... 402-03, 98 A.3d 852 (2014) (grievance committee acts as arm ... of the court in system designed " to preserve ... ...
-
Cohen v. Statewide Grievance Comm., AC 40887
...probability that they are false or do not exist." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes , 152 Conn. App. 380, 386, 98 A.3d 852, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014). "The burden is on the statewide grievance committee to es......
-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sporn
...not the punishment of the offender, but the protection of the court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes , 152 Conn.App. 380, 385, 98 A.3d 852, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014)."[O]ur inquiry is limited to whether the trial court abuse......
-
Marino v. Statewide Grievance Comm.
...false or do not exist." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) 189 Conn.App. 16 Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes , 152 Conn. App. 380, 386, 98 A.3d 852, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014). "The burden is on the statewide grievance committee to establish t......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Clark v. Haggard, 668 Conn. 668 (1990) 8-7:3 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1932) 7-1:2.2 Client Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes, 152 Conn. App. 380, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944 (2014) 1-8:3 Clinard v. Blackwood, 46 S.W.3d 177 (Tenn. 2001) 1-8:5, 5-4 Cohen v. Statewide Grievance Comm.,......
-
2014 Connecticut Appellate Review
...150 Conn.App. 781, 93 A.3d 165 (2014). [108] 150 Conn.App. 205, 90 A.3d 344, cert, denied, 314 Conn. 902, 99 A.3d 1168 (2014). [109] 152 Conn.App. 380, 98 A.3d 852, cert, denied, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014). --------- ...
-
CHAPTER 4 - 4-3 RULE 8.4: THE "CATCHALL"
...and in grievance cases (clear and convincing evidence). See Aliano v. Zelotes, #11-0053; Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes, 152 Conn. App. 380, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944 (2014).[84] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, 299 Conn. 405 (2011).[85] Henry v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 11......
-
CHAPTER 1 - 1-8 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
...v. Commissioner of Corrections, NO. CV030347849S, 2005 WL 3112516 *3 (Oct. 27, 2005). [344] Client Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes, 152 Conn. App. 380, 392, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944 (2014).[345] See discussion of ethical challenges in representing family members by Jason W. Whitney, Brot......