Machado v. Statewide Grievance Committee, No. 26107.

• Decision Date: 21 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26107.
• Citation: 93 Conn.App. 832,890 A.2d 622
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Arthur D. MACHADO v. STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.

890 A.2d 622

93 Conn.App. 832

Arthur D. MACHADO v. STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.

No. 26107.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 21, 2005.

Decided February 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Arthur D. Machado, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Maureen A. Horgan, assistant bar counsel, for the appellee (defendant).

DiPENTIMA, GRUENDEL and DUPONT, Js.

GRUENDEL, J.

The plaintiff, Arthur D. Machado, an attorney, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the reprimand issued to him by the defendant, the statewide grievance committee. The defendant affirmed the decision of its reviewing committee, reprimanding the plaintiff for violating rules 1.2(a)¹ and 1.4(a)² of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that he violated rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a), (2) refused to consider an affidavit he submitted after oral arguments and (3) determined that scienter was not a requirement in finding an ethical violation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following procedural history and relevant facts. The plaintiff is an attorney licensed by the state of Connecticut and was retained by the complainant, Scott V. Adams, to represent him in a bankruptcy proceeding. The plaintiff initially met with Adams in January, 2000, while Adams was in prison.³ At the meeting, Adams instructed the plaintiff to communicate with Kendra Cihocki because, as a prisoner, Adams had limited means of communication. Subsequent to the meeting, Cihocki delivered an $850 check to the defendant as a retainer for Adams' bankruptcy filing.

Thereafter, Cihocki instructed the plaintiff to obtain the release of a sales tax lien that had been placed on a business owned by Adams and Cihocki. The plaintiff provided legal services in connection with the removal of the sales tax lien and, in so doing, depleted the retainer. Shortly thereafter, Cihocki picked up the file from the plaintiff's office and retained new counsel. No funds were left to pursue Adams' bankruptcy, and the plaintiff took no further action on the bankruptcy. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not inform Adams that he no longer was pursuing the bankruptcy proceeding on his behalf.

In August, 2000, the plaintiff decided to close his office, and he released his last staff member the following month. By March, 2001, the lease on the plaintiff's office expired. During that time, Adams attempted to contact the plaintiff by telephone and mail regarding the status of his bankruptcy.⁴ Adams never received a response to his telephone messages or letters.

On March 19, 2002, Adams filed a complaint with the defendant, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff had failed to respond to letters and telephone calls made by Adams in 2000 and 2001. Adams also claimed that the plaintiff owed him $800 because the plaintiff did not perform work on the bankruptcy as initially agreed by both parties.⁵ The defendant's grievance panel, after considering Adams' complaint, filed its decision on August 1, 2002, finding probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had violated rules 1.2, 1.4(a), 1.5(b) and 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On October 1, 2002, a reviewing committee of the defendant conducted a hearing on Adams' complaint. Both Adams and the plaintiff testified at the hearing. On February 14, 2003, the reviewing committee issued its decision to reprimand the plaintiff for violating rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On March 5, 2003, the plaintiff filed a request for review of the reviewing committee's decision, which, on March 20, 2003, the defendant affirmed.

On April 17, 2003, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38⁶ from the defendant's decision reprimanding him. On October 20, 2004, the Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and, on November 29, 2004, denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and reargument. On December 20, 2004, the plaintiff filed his appeal.

I

The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly affirmed the decision of the defendant, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that he violated rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that Cihocki was Adams' agent and, therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to follow her orders in assisting with releasing a sales tax lien. We are not persuaded.

We set forth the applicable standard of review pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38(f).⁷ "[I]n reviewing a decision of the statewide grievance committee to issue a reprimand, neither the trial court nor this court takes on the function of a fact finder. Rather, our role is limited to reviewing the record to determine if the facts as found are supported by the evidence contained within the record and whether the conclusions that follow are legally and logically correct.... Additionally, in a grievance proceeding, the standard of proof applicable in determining whether an attorney has violated the [Rules] of Professional [Conduct] is clear and convincing evidence.... The burden is on the statewide grievance committee to establish the occurrence of an ethics violation by clear and convincing proof....

"[C]lear and convincing proof denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution.... [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ansell v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 87 Conn.App. 376, 382-83, 865 A.2d 1215 (2005).

Applying those principles to the facts before us, we conclude that the reviewing committee's findings, affirmed by the defendant and the court, are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that its conclusions are legally and logically correct.

First, in its February 14, 2003 decision, the reviewing committee found by clear and convincing evidence that "[Adams] retained the [plaintiff] to represent him in his bankruptcy." The reviewing committee further determined that Cihocki was indeed Adams' agent for the bankruptcy filing, but ceased being Adams' agent when she directed the plaintiff to release a sales tax lien on property owned by her and Adams. "The [plaintiff's] failure to abide by [Adams'] decision to file for bankruptcy and failure to consult with [Adams] regarding the change in the scope of representation from bankruptcy to release of a sales tax lien constituted a violation of rule 1.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct."

Second, the reviewing committee determined that the plaintiff did not keep Adams reasonably informed about the status of the bankruptcy. "By not informing [Adams] that his agent had instructed the [plaintiff] to change the scope of representation from bankruptcy to release of the sales tax lien, the [plaintiff] violated rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct."

In his brief, the plaintiff claims that Cihocki had both actual and apparent authority⁸ to redirect his actions to release the sales tax lien. The plaintiff argues that Cihocki had actual authority because Adams gave her a power of attorney and told the plaintiff to follow her instructions. The plaintiff also contends that Cihocki had apparent authority because it was reasonable for him to assume that Cihocki's authority extended to the redirection of his work to encompass the sales tax lien. In support of his contention, the plaintiff lists a number of facts, including that he "spoke to Ms. Cihocki on an almost daily basis" and "spoke with Adams at his initial meeting and at least once by telephone regarding the tax liens ...." He also claims that "the tax liens were among the debts to be discharged in the bankruptcy ...." We are not persuaded by those arguments.

"It is well settled that [t]he nature and extent of an agent's authority is a question of fact for the trier where the evidence is conflicting or where there are several reasonable inferences which can be drawn." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences, Inc. (Connecticut) v. Connecticut Constitution Associates Ltd. Partnership, 260 Conn. 598, 606, 799 A.2d 1027 (2002). As a reviewing court "[w]e must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses that is made on the basis of its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude.... The weight to be given to the evidence and to the credibility of witnesses is solely within the determination of the trier of fact." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Committee v. Dixon, 62 Conn.App. 507, 511, 772 A.2d 160 (2001).

In the present case, the trier of fact, the reviewing committee, determined the scope of the agency relationship after reviewing evidence and hearing the testimony of both Adams and the plaintiff. We note that the committee, as the fact finder, was free to weigh the plaintiff's evidence and to determine the credibility of his testimony. The reviewing committee determined that the plaintiff failed to abide by Adams' decision to file for bankruptcy and failed to inform Adams regarding the change in the scope of representation from bankruptcy to release of a sales tax lien. Indeed, the plaintiff admitted that he was mistaken in not having a new fee agreement document prepared when Cihocki asked him to do work on the tax lien issue.⁹ The plaintiff's challenge to the reprimand issued by the defendant is, therefore, without merit.

The plaintiff further argues that...