Grievance Committee of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner
| Decision Date | 20 July 1964 |
| Parties | GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF the BAR OF HARTFORD COUNTY v. John ROTTNER. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF the BAR OF HARTFORD COUNTY v. George LESSNER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Anson T. McCook, Hartford, and Herbert A. Lane, Mansfield Center, for appellants (defendants).
John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were George D. Stoughton and Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Asst. State's Attys., for appellee (plaintiff in each case).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and DEVLIN, JJ.
The defendants are the two senior members of the firm of Lessner, Rottner, Karp and Jacobs of Manchester, and both have been members of the bar for over thirty years. On presentment to the Superior Court by the grievance committee of the Hartford County bar, the defendants were found guilty of violations of the preamble to the canons of professional ethics and also of Nos. 6, 15, 29 and 37 of the canons.
The charges against the defendants arose out of the relationship of the firm with one of its clients, Stewart J. Twible, Jr. On March 17, 1959, Twible consulted the defendant George Lessner concerning the possibility of bringing suit against a physician and two state policemen who had been responsible for his temporary commitment to a mental hospital as a result of a fight between him and his son in which it was claimed that he had assaulted the latter. In talking to Lessner about the incident, Twible disclosed no medical information concerning himself, but Lessner observed that he appeared to be mentally ill. By letter dated April 10, 1959, Lessner informed Twible that he did not wish to represent him in the matter. No fee was charged, and Lessner did not discuss the matter with any of his partners or associates. Lessner's written notes made at this conference were placed in the dead files of the firm.
Among the junior members of the defendants' firm are Ronald Jacobs, a member of the bar for approximately ten years, and L. Paul Sullivan, a members of the bar for two years. Between April 5, 1960, and April 5, 1962, Jacobs and another junior member of the firm represented Twible in two minor collection matters arising out of his operation of a service station. Jacobs was also consulted in connection with the killing of Twible's dog by an automobile. All of these matters had been settled or otherwise closed by April 5, 1962, and the only charge made by the firm was a fee of $25 for services in one of the collection matters.
On June 4, 1962, Jacobs was retained by Twible in another collection matter, involving approximately $200, against Douglas Houghton, who was nineteen years of age and had no visible assets. Houghton never entered an appearance in the action brought by Jacobs to collect this debt. On Jacobs' instructions, given on July 25, 1962, Sullivan prepared the papers needed to obtain a default judgment against Houghton. On July 30, 1962, Twible was requested by letter to come into the firm's office to sign the papers, but he did not do so. The law firm was not paid any retainer by Twible in the Houghton case.
On July 31, 1962, Sullivan was consulted by Thomas O'Brien, who wanted to bring suit against Twible for assault and battery. Sullivan fully disclosed to O'Brien that the firm had represented Twible in the other matters mentioned above, and, before undertaking to represent O'Brien, Sullivan consulted Jacobs and ascertained that Twible was not on a retainer basis and that he had not consulted Jacobs about the O'Brien case.
On August 1, 1962, Sullivan, with Jacobs' approval, instituted suit on O'Brien's behalf against Twible, while the Houghton matter was still pending. The first count charged Twible with assault and battery, and the second count sought punitive and exemplary damages, charging that the assault and battery by Twible was wilful, wanton, malicious, premeditated and vindictive. The firm entered its appearance for O'Brien. The complaint sought damages of $20,000 from Twible, and his home was attached.
Neither Sullivan nor Jacobs discussed O'Brien's case with Twible, and no consent was secured from him before the O'Brien suit was commenced. After the O'Brien writ was served on Twible, Mrs. Twible called Sullivan and asked why the firm took the O'Brien case. Sullivan told her that it was a just and valid claim, and the firm had decided to take it. Even though there were protestations by the Twibles concerning the matter and the attachment of their home, neither Jacobs nor Sullivan offered to withdraw the firm's appearance in the O'Brien matter. On October 2, 1962, the defendant John Rottner first learned that the firm had appeared in both cases.
On October 6, 1962, Twible complained to the Hartford County grievance committee that the firm of Lessner, Rottner, Karp and Jacobs, while representing him in the Houghton collection case, had undertaken to represent O'Brien against him. On October 12, 1962, the committee, in a letter addressed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schuff v. AT Klemens & Son
...he or she has the undivided loyalty of the one upon whom he or she looks as his or her advocate and champion. Grievance Comm. v. Rottner (1964), 152 Conn. 59, 203 A.2d 82. If, as in this case, the client is sued by his or her own attorney, who is representing him or her in another matter, a......
-
Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside
...breach of loyalty and a violation of the preamble to the Canons of Professional Ethics." (Grievance Com. of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner (1964) 152 Conn. 59, 203 A.2d 82, 85.) The attorney's duty of loyalty to the client has led the Los Angeles County Bar Association to conclude that a......
-
Flatt v. Superior Court
...of opinions that leave no doubt as to the rule and its operation. In one of the earliest of the modern cases, Grievance Committee v. Rottner (1964) 152 Conn. 59, 203 A.2d 82, a law firm was retained by one Twible to represent him as a plaintiff in a collection matter. Although the firm neit......
-
Dukes v. Warden, Connecticut State Prison
...he has the undivided loyalty of the one upon whom he looks as his advocate and his champion.' Grievance Committee of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner, 152 Conn. 59, 65, 203 A.2d 82, 84; see United States ex rel. Taylor v. Rundle, supra; Commonwealth v. Cullen, 216 Pa.Super. 23, 260 A.2d 81......
-
Table of Cases
...§14:219 Grider v. Boston Co., Inc. , 773 SW2d 338 (TexApp — Dallas 1989, writ den), §16:208 Grievance Committee v. Rottner , 152 Conn 59, 203 A2d 82 (1964), §1:67.1 Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America , 496 SW2d 535 (Tex 1973), §14:410 Griffin v. Lee , 621 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2010), §9:4......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...129, appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 683, reh'g denied, 387 U.S. 938 (1966) 6-6:1 Grievance Committee of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner, 152 Conn. 59 (1964) 1-8:2 Grievance Committee of Bar of New Haven County v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325 (1942) 6-6:1 Grimm v. Fox, 303 Conn. 322 (2012) 1-2:2, 8-2:......
-
CHAPTER 1 - 1-8 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
...for material limitation conflicts arising of a lawyer's personal interest.[332] Grievance Committee of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner, 152 Conn. 59 (1964).[333] Grievance Committee of Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner, 152 Conn. 59, 65 (1964). [334] Conn. R. Prof'l Conduct R 1.7(b)(4).[3......
-
Conflicts of Interest Under the Revised Model Rules
...id. R. 1.7 cmt. 16. 37. See id. R. 1.7(b)(3). 38. Cinema 5 v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384 (2d Cir. 1976); Grievance Comm. v. Rottner, 203 A.2d 82 (Conn. 1964). 39. See, e.g., Unified Sewerage Agency v. Jelco, Inc., 646 F.2d 1339, 1344 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981). 40. See MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CON......