What Experts Want Lawyers to Know About Attorney-Ethics Charges
"Be totally prepared. Be honest, and don't be emotional," said legal ethics expert Mark Dubois.
September 23, 2019 at 11:52 AM
4 minute read
Experts say getting representation to defend an attorney discipline case is wise, but many lawyers don't heed that advice.
For attorneys facing disciplinary action, the process can be daunting—even for litigators—and especially for first-time respondents. Former attorney-prosecutors say all defendants need legal counsel. They say in order to win in the grievance-complaint maze, attorneys in the hot seat must follow important steps.
A key part of the process: being contrite and acknowledging wrongdoing. In defending themselves against allegations of wrongdoing, some attorneys feel the need to pin blame on their accusers. But that almost never goes over well with tribunals entrusted with protecting the profession and public interest, according to three experts who prosecuted lawyers or defend them before Connecticut's grievance committee.
"An attitude of humility is important," said David P. Atkins, a member of Pullman & Comley's litigation department and head of its professional liability section. "Do not blame the complainant because that can backfire and be disastrous."
Atkins said "in a case where it's a close call," being contrite could mean the difference between dismissal of the case or further prosecution.
Former First Assistant Chief Disciplinary Counsel Suzanne Sutton agrees.
"You need to acknowledge your own part in the grievance," said Sutton, who spent about nine years prosecuting attorney discipline cases before joining Cohen & Wolf as a member of its legal ethics, litigation and bankruptcy groups. "The disciplinary authorities will appreciate that, and take that into consideration."
The majority of complaints against attorneys stem from allegations of inattentiveness to clients, fee disputes, poor or miscommunication, discrepancies in Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, and other general misconduct. A Connecticut Law Tribune review of attorney discipline cases before state grievance panels from January 2014 to August 2019 found there were 317 violations for Rule 1.5, which involves safekeeping property, and 453 violations for misconduct, or Rule 8.4. Most cases do not involve criminal offenses which, the experts say, are hard to fight against.
|Be prepared, be honest
"The panel wants a complete description of the history of the representations," Atkins said. "But, at the same time, they do not want to be flooded with every single piece of paper from a lawyer's file. It's important to balance, and that's where we come in."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All2 Law Firms Are Feuding Over Allegedly Stolen Clients and Work Processes
4 minute readCourt Says Ex Parte Communications With Expert Witness Not Clearly Prohibited
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250