I was just browsing through the internet when I stumbled across a Notice in the April 5, 2011 Connecticut Law Journal placed by Attorney Michael P. Bowler, the Statewide Bar Counsel. Apparently there is a new Rule 11A Motion to Dismiss By Disciplinary Counsel which is on the verge of being implemented.
This is how this new rule goes:
"A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7(C)(1) of these rules, Discipinary Counsel may file a motion to dismiss a grievance complaint after a finding of probable cause under the following circumstances:
1. Disciplinary Counsel believes that he or she does not have evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof required to prove the alleged rule violations; or
2. The Respondent is exposed to discipline for the same conduct under Practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40, or 2-41. Any motion granated under this subsection will be without prejudice to the Disciplinary Counsel filing a new grievance complaint or presentment pursuant to practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40 or 2-41."
Ok, I get number two, you wouldn't want duplication of punishment...oh, but then again, maybe I actually do! But number one--excuse me!
Continuing on, this is how it goes next:
"B. the motion to dismiss under this rule may only be filed by the Disciplinary Counsel. An original and three copies of the motion (an original and three copies--wow, I'll make a note of that!) shall be filed with the committee prior to or during the proceeding before a reviewing committee and a copy shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Counsel to the complainant, the respondent and their counsel. The motion shall clearly explain the reasons for the requested dismissal.
C. The reviewing committee shall hear the motion on the record. At such hearing, the reviewing committee shall allow argument from the Disciplinary Counsel, the Respondent or Respondent's counsel concerning the motion. The Complainant or Complainant's counsel may make a staement in support of, or in opposition to the motion." (Seriously, just a statement? Not an argument? How come the Respondant has all the fun of an argument, but not the Complainant...not fair!)
"D. Following the hearing, the reviewing committee shall issue a written decision either granting or denying the motion.
1. If the Motion is granted, notice shall be sent to the Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel and the matter shall be dismissed.
2. If the motion is denied, Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel shall be notified and the matter shall be scheduled for a hearing before a different reviewing committee.
What this change in the procedure does is essentially water down a procedure that was already watered down so much that it is even more impossible to hold any lawyer accountable for his or her actions than it was before, and it is even now more impossible to hold a lawyer accountable at Statewide than it would be if you brought your complaint before the civil court. That is ridiculous!
This new rule adds an additional step to bringing a complaint before the review committee so that it can be dismissed quickly before anyone has the opportunity to take note of it. It adds more opportunities for the Statewide Grievance Committee and its panels to kick up dust, wear out complainants, and deflect scutiny from their proceedings.
I am further interested in how this change in the rules took place. How come I never heard of this proposed change in the rules before, and now I find out about it long after it has been voted in place and there is nothing I can do about it? I mean, seriously, what about Connecticut General Statute 51-14 which requires that there be a public hearing in regard to all rule changes in the Connecticut Practice Book. Did anyone know about any hearing in regard to this rule at any time whatsoever?
Well, ready or not, this rule is now in place and will be effective on April 12, 2012. Gotta love that Connecticut Style Democracy. Why bother to check with your citizens who are going to be affected by this new rule. Guess the rules committee figured that the hearing requirement was too petty and annoying to obey.
No comments:
Post a Comment