Committee v. Ganim
Decision Date | 15 April 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 19192.,19192. |
Citation | 311 Conn. 430,87 A.3d 1078 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. Joseph P. GANIM. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Harold R. Rosnick, with whom, on the brief, were Bruce L. Levin and Barbara M. Schellenberg, Bridgeport, for the appellant(defendant).
Patricia A. King, chief disciplinary counsel, with whom was Suzanne B. Sutton, first assistant chief disciplinary counsel, for the appellee(plaintiff).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
This case addresses the limits of the deference that should be afforded to a local standing committee of the state bar when that committee recommends that an individual, who recently has been released from prison after serving a lengthy term for multiple federal felonies that he committed while holding public office, should be reinstated to the bar and, therefore, entrusted again with the privilege of practicing law.The defendant, Joseph P. Ganim, was suspended from the practice of law upon presentment by the plaintiff, the Statewide Grievance Committee, as a result of his conviction of sixteen federal felony offenses stemming from actions he took while he was the mayor of Bridgeport, the state's largest city.1Soon after his release from prison, he applied for reinstatement to the bar.Although a local standing committee that investigated the defendant's application recommended that he be reinstated, the trial court rejected that recommendation and denied the defendant's application.The defendant appeals 2 from the trial court's judgment, claiming that the court improperly failed to defer to the standing committee's recommendation that he be reinstated and, relatedly, that the court misinterpreted that committee's report, committed legal improprieties when reviewing the report, and wrongfully determined that some of the standing committee's findings were clearly erroneous.We disagree with these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the appeal.The defendant was admitted to the Connecticut bar in 1984.He served as mayor of the city of Bridgeport(city) from 1991 until 2003, when he was convicted, after a jury trial, of the federal offenses of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, honest services mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341and1346, bribery involving programs receiving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).United States v. Ganim,510 F.3d 134, 136(2d Cir.2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1313, 128 S.Ct. 1911, 170 L.Ed.2d 749(2008).The events underlying the defendant's convictions are summarized, as follows, in the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding those convictions.“As mayor [of the city], [the defendant] was responsible for the overall operation of municipal government and, among other responsibilities, had final authority over the [c]ity's contracts.During his first campaign for mayor, [the defendant] became acquainted with Leonard J. Grimaldi(Grimaldi), who acted as a media advisor, and Paul J. Pinto(Pinto), who began as his driver and aide.[The defendant] developed close relationships with Grimaldi and Pinto over the years that followed.Grimaldi subsequently formed a public relations company called Harbor Communications, of which he was the sole proprietor and employee.Pinto became associated with (and later purchased an ownership interest in) the Kasper Group, a Bridgeport architecture and engineering firm.
...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC
...exercise of its discretionary authority was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory").30 See, e.g., Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 451, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014) (burden is on applicant in reinstatement proceeding to establish that standing committee acted arbitrarily or ......
-
State v. Andres C.
...discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment." Id., at 66, 131 S Ct. 1350; see, e.g., Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 452, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014) ("An attorney as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, is continually accountable to it fo......
-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey
...a legal determination that would, in any event, ultimately be subject to review by the trial court. See Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim , 311 Conn. 430, 452, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014) ("[t]he ultimate facts [found by a standing committee] are reviewable by the court to determine whether th......
-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Spadoni
...principles of law." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim , 311 Conn. 430, 450–52, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014). Ultimately, "[b]ecause the trial court exercises no discretion, but rather is confined to a review of the record ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Ct. Sept. 30, 1998) 7-8:3 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Friedland, 222 Conn. 131 (1992) 2-3:1 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430 (2014) 4-3:4, 7-11:1 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Gifford, 76 Conn. App. 454 (2003) 1-4 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Gillis, No. CV0......
-
CHAPTER 4 - 4-3 RULE 8.4: THE "CATCHALL"
...(Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 29, 2000) (case contains a discussion of other similar cases). But see Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 461 n.35 (2014) (rules have been amended to provide that an attorney suspended for commission of a crime may not apply for readmission until s......
-
CHAPTER 7 - 7-11 SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT
...Counsel v. Karanian, No. HHBCV084027393, 2015 WL 5025084 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 20, 2015).[268] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 467 (2014).[269] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rapoport, 119 Conn. App. 269, 274 cert. denied, 297 Conn. 907 (2010) ("It is well establis......