For Protective Parents. Your source for news and information on the broken Family Court System in Connecticut. I am NOT an attorney. This blog does not constitute legal advice.
PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label ATTORNEYS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATTORNEYS. Show all posts
Friday, February 7, 2014
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
C. MICHAEL BUDLONG HAS BEEN DISCIPLINED BY THE STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, AND THAT IS SAYING A LOT!
For those of you who take an interest, I was checking out Attorney C. Michael Budlong's listing on AVVO and found the following link. See below:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/06106-ct-c-budlong-1442933.html
Apparently, according to the listing, Attorney C. Michael Budlong was reprimanded and the notation on that was posted on AVVO with the intention that a public statement would encourage Attorney Budlong to refrain from bad behavior in the future. I am not sure if it did, but I am all for powerful aspirational statements!
It is Budlong & Barrett, LLC that was involved in trumping up a false Amber Alert in Colleen Kerwick's case which led this lovely young mother to lose all access to her 4 year old son. I believe that the Judge in the case found the accusation believable because Ms. Kerwick is a native of Ireland and many foreign nationals who find themselves in family court end up under suspicion of wishing to flee the country with their child, even when there is absolutely no cause to believe it.
While Attorney Budlong himself has not been involved in this case, it is his partner, Attorney Campbell Barrett who is, along with Attorney Jon Kuckucka who was featured in a prior blog. See the link below:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/01/information-on-jon-kukucka-esq-who-is.html
I am assuming this is a birds of a feather flock together type thing. The one former client who left a comment in regard to C. Michael Budlong stated as follows:
Mr Budlong missed his calling as an actor. He is more concerned with his own personal show in court than his clients
- Overall rating
- Poor
- Trustworthy
- Poor
- Responsive
- Poor
- Knowledgeable
- Average
- Kept me informed
- Poor
- I do not recommend C Budlong.
- I hired C Budlong more than 3 years ago.
- C Budlong handled my Divorce / Separation matter.
Upon recommendation of a friend, I retained Mr. Budlong. I thought I was in good hands when he showed me all his pictures of him with famous people. That was the first sign that his ego was more important than my case. Mr. Budlong does not take the time to educate his clients. He pushed me to make snap decisions that I have regretted for years. As I was being steam rolled by the other attorney's, Mr Budlong kept asking me "do you want to get divorced or not".
So doesn't look like the Statewide Grievance Reprimand did a lot of good! I will say that it is remarkable that C. Michael Budlong received any kind of reprimand at all. I have submitted my own complaints in regard to attorneys who violated their professional ethics, and I know many other people who have submitted complaints regarding attorneys whose conduct has been absolutely outrageous, yet they are not reprimanded. I can only guess at what Attorney Budlong must have done to get one! My imagination is going wild!
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
INFORMATION ON JON KUKUCKA, ESQ. WHO IS CURRENTLY PERSECUTING PROTECTIVE MOTHER, COLLEEN KERWICK!
This is general information in regard to Attorney Jon Kukucka who is leading the legal charge against Protective Mother, Colleen Kerwick. It is as a result of his actions that Colleen has not seen her child in over a month. I wonder how he would feel if he was unable to see his child. I wonder how his wife would feel if she knew what he was up to.
For further information, regarding this attorney's background, see below. I obtained this information from the Budlong and Barrett website.
B.A. University of Connecticut
J.D. Roger Williams University , School of Law
J.D. Roger Williams University , School of Law
Attorney Jon T. Kukucka graduated, magna cum laude, from the University of Connecticut with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Sociology. He received his Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Roger Williams University School of Law, where he was an editor of the Law Review and a member of the Honors Program. During law school, he received CALI Awards for Excellence in Legal Writing, Civil Procedure, Trial Advocacy, Judicial Process & Ethics and Labor Law.
Following graduation, Attorney Kukucka served as a legal research clerk to the judges of the Connecticut Superior Court. Prior to joining Budlong and Barrett, Attorney Kukucka served as a law clerk to the Honorable Francis M. McDonald and the Honorable Robert I. Berdon at the Connecticut Appellate Court.
Attorney Kukucka is admitted to practice before Connecticut's federal and state courts and is a member of the Connecticut and Hartford County Bar Associations. He focuses his practice on family law. Attorney Kukucka has represented clients in cases involving dissolution of marriage, prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements, property division, alimony, parental relocation, child custody, visitation and child support. Attorney Kukucka has also been counsel on many appeals to the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts and recently co-authored Developments in Connecticut Family Law 2008 and 2009, an article that appeared in the Connecticut Bar Journal in 2010. In 2011, Attorney Kukucka was selected as a Rising Star in the area of matrimonial law by the Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association.
Attorney Kukucka enjoys fishing and is a lifelong baseball fan.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
AND THEY CALL THEM INSANE!
In the early 70s, a group of eight people--three women and five men--checked into the emergency rooms of 12 separate psychiatric hospitals and said that they heard voices telling them "empty", "hollow", or "thud". All eight of them were admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of schizophrenia, except one who was diagnosed with bipolar.
Once in the hospital, all of these patients behaved completely normally and reported that they had no more symptoms. Still it took from 7 to 52 days for them to be released. As a condition of their release, they were all required to admit that they had a mental illness and that they would take anti-psychotic medication in order to control that illness.
As it turned out, none of these folks had a mental illness. They were all volunteers in an experiment conducted by Dr. David Rosenhan in order to test the validity of psychiatric diagnoses. One was a graduate student in his twenties, three were psychologists, and there was a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife.
Once the results of this experiment came out, the doctors at these hospitals cried foul and said that the test was unfair, so Dr. Rosenhan agreed to do it again with one specific hospital. This time he warned the hospital to expect that fake patients would again attempt admittance to its facility. In the weeks that followed, the staff at the hospital confidently identified 41 out the 193 patients that it had evaluated as fake patients.
As it turned out, Dr. Rosenhan hadn't sent anyone to the facility at all.
The results of this study made it clear how difficult it is to distinguish between the sane and the insane, particularly within the context of a hospital emergency room where staff members are approaching patients with specific expectations.
Ironically, even though none of the staff members in the first experiment identified the fake patients, several of the patients at these hospitals expressed their doubts suggesting that the fake patients were researchers or journalists investigating the hospitals.
The results of this study were published by Dr. David Rosenhan in 1973 in an article entitled "Being Sane in Insane Places."
While the study remains controversial within the mental health profession, no one has been able to successfully refute its conclusions. Put twenty five different psychiatrists in a room with a patient, and you are likely to obtain as many diagnoses of that patient as you have psychiatrists.
This is why it is particularly troubling that the Connecticut Judicial Branch allows Judges and attorneys to use fabricated mental health assessments to trash the reputations of litigants and use them as the basis for denying them access to their children. Many of these litigants have never had a diagnosis before they stepped into a courtroom.
I observed this happening in Susan Skipp's case recently. The trial court had heard expert testimony from Ms. Skipp's psychiatrist that she had PTSD from the legal abuse which she was experiencing as a result of her divorce.
Ordinarily, any conclusion the Court draws about litigants in court arises from the evidence provided at trial through expert testimony or documents which provide corroborating information. In Susan Skipp's situation, Judge Lynda Munro without any evidentiary basis whatsoever arbitrarily disregarded the testimony about Ms. Skipp's PTSD and wrote a Memorandum of Decision which broadly hinted that Ms. Skipp had some other, unnamed mental health condition that still needed to be diagnosed.
This is something that Judge Munro invented from her own mind. Yet, Munro is not a psychiatrist and has no professional qualifications to diagnose anyone with a mental health condition. If she had concerns that Susan Skipp had some unidentified mental health condition, she had the opportunity to ask that question of the expert witnesses which the attorney made available during the four days of trial, but she did not.
Instead, Judge Lynda Munro took the opportunity to smear Ms. Skipps reputation counting upon her judicial immunity as a means to get away with doing so.
Subsequently, the Judge continued on the use this unnamed mental health illness, about which there was no evidence presented at trial, as the basis for denying Ms. Skipp access to her children.
In a similar case which I observed recently, another friend who will remain anonymous--let's call him "Joe" was also subjected to this Judge initiated pseudo-psychiatry.
Joe had provided an expert witness from out of state to testify to the effect that Joe did not have a mental illness. Instead of accepting this testimony, the Judge in the case refused to consider it valid because it came from a mental health professional from out of state. Tell me, what did the Judge think happens? Mental Health Professionals from, say, New Jersey, lose their professional expertise and intelligence as soon as they cross the border into Connecticut? That doesn't say much about any of the professions in the field of mental health if their body of knowledge cannot be translated from one State to another!
Be that as it may, having decided that an out of state mental health professional is incapable of providing an accurate assessment of my friend, Joe, the Judge went on to declare that Joe had a mental health disability; he isn't sure what it is, and what it consists of, but surely an in-state professional could figure it out. Further, the Judge's decision was that Joe would be restricted to supervised visitation until the diagnosis could be figured out.
Another way that you could interpret the discussion in Joe's case is that the Court was only willing to have a mental health professional provide testimony if he was in-state and affiliated with the Judge and the Opposing Attorney so the latter could influence the result of the psychological evaluation. If true, this calls into question the integrity of any mental health professional who would allow factors outside the evaluation itself, (i.e. friendship with the judge or other attorneys) to affect his or her determination of a particular person's diagnosis.
As with Susan and "Joe", I can name case after case where judges and attorneys have hinted at unnamed mental health conditions to gain advantage in a case, or to have their own way, independent of the facts of the case.
This is not the first time in history where people in positions of power have sought to maintain and expand their authority by accusing their opponents of insanity. Nazi Germany comes to mind, Russia and its Eastern European Allies; the People's Republic of China during the era of Mao Zedong. Women, particularly intelligent women, have been victimized by false accusations of insanity for doing such things as fighting for the right to vote or demanding an education. And don't forget the notorious diagnosis of drapetomania, invented in 1851 by Samuel A. Cartwright to describe a mental illness which caused slaves to run away from their bondage.
Even if there were any validity to a diagnosis of mental illness, why is a mental health disability or any disability for that matter used as a means to deny a person access to their children or due process of law? Wasn't the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 implemented with the intention of eliminating discrimination on the basis of disability?
If a person has a disability as determined by Family Court, either a physical or mental disability, shouldn't the question be what reasonable modifications does that person require in order to fulfill his or her role as a parent--not how can we immediately strip that person of all his or her civil rights and constitutional rights without any further investigation. Why is there such a powerful knee jerk reaction of condemnation and rejection simply as the result of a label. If a person who has blindness or a person who has deafness can still be a parent, why not a person with mental illness. What's the difference?
If a person has a disability as determined by Family Court, either a physical or mental disability, shouldn't the question be what reasonable modifications does that person require in order to fulfill his or her role as a parent--not how can we immediately strip that person of all his or her civil rights and constitutional rights without any further investigation. Why is there such a powerful knee jerk reaction of condemnation and rejection simply as the result of a label. If a person who has blindness or a person who has deafness can still be a parent, why not a person with mental illness. What's the difference?
More than any other, an attorney's accusation that a particular litigant has some form of mental illness is the most harmful and damaging one out there. Why is that so? Because it appeals to society's most basic prejudices towards people with mental illness, to such concepts that people with mental illness are subhuman monsters capable of any kind of violence and degradation, that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and that they are intellectually damaged beyond repair and incapable of rudimentary thought and insight. Many people believe that any kind of deception and misrepresentation is acceptable to practice against a person who has a mental illness because they believe that someone with a mental health label should have no rights.
With such widespread and prevalent attitudes of hatred towards those with mental illness, particularly after the Sandy Hook incident, trashing a person by calling them crazy has to be the easiest way to achieve the goal of destroying the opposing party in a custody trial.
At the same time such practices are morally and spiritually repugnant in that they stigmatize, marginalize, silence, and deny justice to one fifth of the population in our State, and it is done with the support of the moral equivalent of the KKK when it comes to mental health disabilities, i.e. the Connecticut Judicial Branch, the Connecticut Bar Association, judges, attorneys, family services personnel, clerks, and other employees who work for our family courts all of whom buy into the false, bigoted premise that people with mental health disabilities should not be allowed any of the kinds of legal rights which are routinely accorded to citizens of Connecticut who do not have a label. From what I have personally observed, bigoted attitudes like this are common among those who work in the legal field and accepted uncritically. This is wrong and it has to stop--now.
As a final thought, it is worth considering:
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would probably be denied custody of his children. He had frequent bouts of clinical depression.
Ludwig Van Beethoven was involved in a custody dispute regarding his nephew Karl and won. Were he in Family Court in Connecticut today, he might not gain custody because he is thought to have had bipolar disorder.
Many average citizens have mental health disorders; they ride to work on the same buses that you do, pay taxes, get college degrees, and go to Church. They do not have horns. Isn't it time for Court personnel and family court attorneys to acknowledge that this is true and stop demonizing innocent people.
As a final thought, it is worth considering:
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would probably be denied custody of his children. He had frequent bouts of clinical depression.
Ludwig Van Beethoven was involved in a custody dispute regarding his nephew Karl and won. Were he in Family Court in Connecticut today, he might not gain custody because he is thought to have had bipolar disorder.
Many average citizens have mental health disorders; they ride to work on the same buses that you do, pay taxes, get college degrees, and go to Church. They do not have horns. Isn't it time for Court personnel and family court attorneys to acknowledge that this is true and stop demonizing innocent people.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
O'CONNELL, FLAHERTY AND ATTMORE, NOW O'CONNELL, ATTMORE AND MORRIS, CASE LIST REDUCED!
O'Connell, Flaherty and Attmore, LLC, which is now O'Connell, Attmore and Morris, LLC has had its online case list reduced from 69 to 50, a reduction of around 19 cases. Most of these are collection cases of consisting of former clients that O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC is suing.
There is no way to confirm whether there is any wrongdoing here when it comes to these cases which have disappeared, but I sure would like to know why a case list that has been posted untouched for a considerable period of time is now being whittled down. Is it because people like me have pointed out how no attorney firm of integrity would sue in collections up to 69 former clients?
The news is, of course, that reducing the list to 50 isn't a big improvement.
News Flash Folks! Good law firms do not have to sue their former clients because they have good relationships with those former clients because they did a good job.
Duh!
I will continue to keep an eye out and report on this very intriguing situation where the O'Connell, Flaherty and Attmore, LLC case list is being reduced mysteriously by unseen hands.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF AN ETHICAL, HARDWORKING ATTORNEY FIRM, ONE THAT SUPPORTS BOTH MEN AND WOMEN FAIRLY IN COURT
Please VOTE for KLEIN-BABBITT as the "Best Lawyer"
In the Hartford Advocate “Best of Hartford Reader’s Poll 2013”
This is an attorney firm that is fair to both men and women during litigation and actually has a good idea how to practice law in a conscientious and ethical manner. We ought to support this.
Therefore, take a quick moment & vote. All you need to do is follow these easy steps...
2) Enter your email address, first name and last name then click "VOTE"
3) "Best Lawyer" is listed under the category "Professional Services" I’m on the pull down bar.
***** FYI >>> You MUST click “Submit & Continue” at the bottom of the screen for each category in order for your vote to count. *****
4) When you are done, click “Finalize My Ballot”
The deadline to vote is 2/13/2013…but please vote ASAP so you don’t forget.
I would really appreciate it. If you want, I would also appreciate if you would forward this email to any of your friends. The more the better. Let's send the message that we stand by attorneys who understand how to practice law in an ethical manner no matter what your gender or the level of your income.
For more information regarding this attorney firm, please check the following link:
Friday, January 11, 2013
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED? STUDY REVEALS ATTORNEYS AS PSYCHOPATHS!
A recent article by Kevin Dutton entitled "Wisdom From Psychopaths" in the January/February 2013 Scientific American Mind suggests that psychopaths have personality traits that could be valuable to the rest of us.
For example, mental toughness, fearlessness, the ability to focus intensely, the ability to live in the moment. These are all characteristics of psychopathy which, apparently, we could all benefit from having.
In other words, Mr. Dutton states, "The triumvirate of charm, focus and ruthlessness that psychopaths possess can predispose a person for long-term life success." Further, "A psychopath's proclivity to live in the moment can arm against anxiety and bring joy."
It is not surprising, therefore, that in real life, a good majority of psychopaths find themselves right on the top of the social scale.
To learn more about this point, Kevin Dutton carried out a survey to investigate the existence of psychopathic traits within the British workforce. In doing so, Mr. Dutton had approximately 5,400 people fill out the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale and then broke down the responses by 50 different professions. At the end of his study, Dutton was able to rank professions based upon the ten top most psychopathic professions and the ten least psychopathic professions.
It will surprise no one to find that attorneys ranked as the second most psychopathic profession. CEOs were right at the top. Priests were at number eight, and civil servants down at number ten. I expected the latter to be much higher, so I guess I stand corrected. Surgeons were up there at number four.
When it comes to the least psychopathic professions, I was surprised to find therapists down there. My experience is the therapists are the most deceptive, manipulative people I have ever met. Perhaps the explanation for the score is that this is a self reported survey and therapists know better than to self report themselves as psychopathic!
Further among the least psychopathic, one big surprise for me was beauticians at number 5.
For the better part professions fueled by greed and the will to power attract narcissistic, power hungry individuals, while low paid, service professions like caregiving do the opposite.
So now we know why so many psychopathic Fathers are able to exploit the system and get away with murder; their attorneys recognize they are brothers under the skin.
For the complete article, please click on the following link:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wisdom-from-psychopaths
For the complete article, please click on the following link:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wisdom-from-psychopaths
Monday, July 2, 2012
PRO HAC VICE: GETTING AN ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF STATE
Once you get sick and tired of what your own attorney is doing, and once you have gone through several other attorneys in the course of your high conflict divorce, you might start thinking about going out of state for help. This is not uncommon in a high conflict divorce.
Is it possible to obtain legal representation from out of state for an action within the State of Connecticut? Yes, you can. Under those circumstances, you would obtain an attorney pro hac vice. I have no idea of what that means in latin! Maybe one of the readers of this blog knows and can tell me!
This means you bring in an attorney from out of state by obeying Section 2-16 of the Rules of Superior Court.
This section of the rules allows "any attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, upon written application presented by a member of the Connecticut bar, to be permitted in the court's discretion to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any Connecticut state court."
In order to be admitted pro hac vice, an attorney from another state must provide an affidavit stating the following:
1) certifying whether he has a grievance pending against him in any other jurisdiction, has ever been reprimanded, suspended, placed on inactive status, disbarred, or has ever resigned from the practice of law, and if so setting forth the circumstances concerning such action;
2) designating the chief clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which he will be appearing as his agent upon whom process and service of notice may be served, and agreeing to register with the statewide grievance committee while appearing in the matter in Connecticut and for two years after the completion of the matter in which he appeared; and
3. identifying the number of cases in which he has appeared pro hac vice in Connecticut superior court. The attorney from out of state must agree to have a member of the Connecticut bar be present at all proceedings and this member must sign all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court and assume full responsibility for them and for the conduct of the cause and of the attorney to whom such privilege is accorded.
Where feasible, the application to represent a client pro hac vice shall be made to the judge before whom such a case is likely to be tried. If that judge is not available, the application should be made to the administrative judge in the judicial district where the matter is to be tried.
The rule requires that there has to be a good reason for granting such a privilege and states that such a reason will be limited to personal or financial reasons that affect the client, not the attorney.
An example of this could be a longstanding attorney-client relationship that predates the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation such that the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client's affairs important to the trial of the cause, or that the litigant couldn't obtain services of a Connecticut counsel.
Upon the granting of an application to appear pro hac vice, the clerk of the court in which the application is granted must immediately notify the statewide grievance committee of such an action.
Rule 62-8A contains similar rules for appearing pro hac vice in the Connecticut Appellate or Supreme Court.
Arbitrations: Apparently, in 2005, Judge Berger banned the use of out of state attorneys from Connecticut Arbitrations, thus joining a short list of states which won't allow them for such proceedings.
The bottom line is that there are so many requirements for having an attorney appear for you out of state that it is ultimately prohibitive for anyone to do it.
Also, how many attorneys here in Connecticut do you know that would be willing to sign his or her name endorsing some other attorney's briefs and pleadings and take full responsibility for another attorney's actions, particularly when they are going to represent a client with a difficult case who has already tried and failed with several other attorneys? I don't see that happening.
My best guess is this kind of situation happens with corporate attorneys with a large company which can take responsibility for the actions of the attorney coming from out of state. But it is not likely to happen in high conflict divorce cases.
Also, are you ready to pay for two attorneys when you go to a hearing in your case?
But don't rule this approach out entirely. If you are willing to be flexible, the law doesn't prevent you from obtaining valuable support and advice from attorneys out of state by phone or email. Many of the procedures for pursuing a case in family court are similar no matter what state you are in, so out of state attorneys can provide you with direction, while you follow through with the practical steps.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES IN CONNECTICUT GEARED TO PROTECT CROOKED LAWYERS!
As I said I would in my previous post regarding grievance procedures, I am going to report back to you regarding my experiences filing a grievance. So here goes!
As you know, I am very meticulous about submitting any papers to the court and I was similarly meticulous when I submitted my complaint to the Statewide Grievance Committee. I had very solid evidence regarding my complaints all of which showed that the attorney I had complained about had, indeed, violated the attorney's Professional Code of Ethics. Nonetheless, my grievance complaint was rejected out of hand despite overwhelming evidence that the attorney was guilty.
So much for the legal profession being self regulating!
After I recovered from the shock and disappointment, my next question was how could this possibly happen? As I read and reread the response I have received from the Statewide Grievance Committee, some of the answers to this question became more and more clear.
The reason why so many legitimate complaints regarding unethical lawyers end up being ignored is that the grievance procedures in Connecticut are geared to protect crooked lawyers.
This is how it works. The first step in the Grievance Procedure is that you submit your complaint to the Statewide Grievance Committee. If your complaint isn't immediately dismissed because it is so obviously ridiculous the Committee won't even consider it for a minute, the complaint is sent to a Grievance Panel for a determination of whether there is probable cause to proceed further with this complaint.
According to page 4 of the manual on grievance procedures made available by the Statewide Grievance Committee, this Grievance Panel "is composed of one person who is not an attorney and two attorneys whose law offices are in judicial districts outside that in which the panel serves." What the brochure doesn't tell you, and I must say I'm always amused by what brochures of this kind fail to tell you, is that the 2011 Connecticut Practice Book, Section 2-29(a) states that the non attorney member of the grievance panel must reside in the judicial district where the attorney being complained about practices law." So why didn't the Statewide Grievance Committee add that little point in their brochure? I guess they want to convey the idea to consumers like you and me that they are making an attempt at neutrality. Riiigghhhtt! It's this major, major point they just omit telling you!
Another factor that plays an important role in preventing consumers from obtaining a fair hearing of their grievances arises from the role of the Counsel to the Grievance Panel. What the brochure tells you on page 5 is that "The grievance panel will investigate the case." Well, no, actually, primarily it is the Counsel to the Grievance Panel who will investigate the case. See the 2011 Connecticut Practice Book Section 2-31 (2) which states that one of the duties of the Counsel to the Grievance Panel is "To investigate all complaints received by the grievance panel from the statewide bar counsel involving alleged misconduct of an attorney." And guess what, folks, this Counsel does not have to practice outside of the judicial district where the Grievance Panel is serving. This means that the guise of neutrality, the implication of fairness, the concept that your complaint is being handled outside of the sphere of influence of the lawyer you are complaining about (the respondant) is specious because at least one forth or even a half of the people related to that Grievance Panel are actually within the judicial district of the respondant.
Now the Statewide Grievance Committee will say, that isn't true because the Counsel to the Grievance Panel isn't a member of the panel and is unable to vote. However, what I am complaining about is that the counsel provides all the results of the investigation regarding the complaint to the panel and can, therefore, spin these results any way he or she pleases. That is providing an unconscionable amount of power to a single non voting member of the panel.
Finally, the policy of the Statewide Grievance Committee is that the decision of the Grievance Panel regarding your complaint is final and cannot be appealed, neither can you request that a higher authority review the decision. That is amazing! Even the legal system doesn't give so much authority to the lowest level of the court system. Imagine what would happen in our courts if all decisions were final and no decisions could be appealed or submitted for review! Imagine the outcry that would result!
To be honest, as an advocate, I have reviewed several grievance procedures in a number of organizations and I've never heard of any grievance procedure without a policy that allows for an appeal or additional review. Consider how research studies in the medical field are all subject to peer review. Apparently, lawyers are so confident of their abilities, they don't think it is necessary to undergo a similar process. I wish I had such an extraordinary amount of ego strength in my own life!
Finally, here is the ultimate blow to fairness and equity for consumers in the grievance procedures established by the State of Connecticut. Apparently, there is only one situation in which the decision of a Grievance Panel is not final, and that is a situation in which the complainant alleges that a crime occurred. Thus, the 2011 Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 2-32(i)(2) specifies that, if no probable cause is found, a grievance panal shall either dismiss the complaint in a decision that is final, or, if a crime is alleged, file its decision with the Statewide Grievance Committee so that the decision can be reviewed.
However, the determination of whether the complainant alleges that a crime occurred is left entirely in the hands of the Grievance Panel. And, according to the Statewide Grievance Committee Rule of Procedure No. 6 (D) "Under no circumstances shall the [Statewide Grievance] Committee review the grievance panel's decision that a crime was not alleged in the complaint."
My complaint alleged that my attorney had stolen money from me, an act which I understand to be a crime. Yet the Grievance Panel in my case determined that I had not alleged that there was a crime. The last time I looked stealing was and is a crime. Nonetheless, the Grievance Panel has the absolute power and authority to deny that is so and nothing can be done about it.
Under these circumstances, the question we as consumers are left with is "What do you do if a Grievance Panel goes rogue?" "Why didn't the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee take steps to protect consumers from rogue Grievance panels?" Perhaps the answer is that the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee itself has gone rogue! Citizens beware!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)