MR. DAN LYNCH'S TESTIMONY AT MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!

So I have a list of speakers.  The first one is Daniel Lynch. 

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning, Mr. Lynch.

               ATTY. LYNCH:  Good morning, Your Honors.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  As you know, you’ll have five minutes.  Also, if you are going to exceed that time, you’re free to submit any written testimony that you would like to do so.

               MR. LYNCH:  Thank you, Your Honors.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning at this forum.  I have submitted three pages of written testimony prior to my statements which I’ll make, and I’m not going to use my time to, kind of, read it into the record.  I think that would be, you know, counter-productive and insulting, as well, and I don’t mean to do that at all.  I will have to glance down from time to time.

               In short, Your Honors, I have been involved in litigation in the state of Connecticut, sadly, since 2008, litigation which I think was kind of unnecessary, but, be that as it may, I stand here today, in March of 2013. 

               I had been previously represented at the trial court and at the Appellate Court by counsel.  I am still in those courts now currently without counsel primarily because I have no funds available, not because I want to exercise my right to try to be my own attorney.  I’d much rather have people like Attorney Gallagher representing me on an appeal again but sadly I can’t do that.

               But I’m not here to talk about the details of my case.  I think anybody who is here today could probably go on and on about that and a lot of emotion, a lot of everything else.  What I am here to talk about is what I think are some flaws as -- respectfully, by the way, I do say this -- as from my view as I’ve seen in practice as it pertains to primarily Rule 2-52 that deals with the resignation and waiver by an attorney.

               Now, in an instance where you have an individual who perhaps thinks an attorney did something wrong, if that attorney was their attorney, they can pursue that through civil matters and so forth, grievance -- not only grievance, but they can also file a civil complaint. 

               In an instance where somebody like myself had very specific and numerous issues dealing with opposing counsel, the only remedy available to me in the state of Connecticut currently is through the Statewide Grievance Committee, period.  I recognize -- and I was here in this room on September 19 of 2012 when the matter of Simms v. Seaman was taken up and there’s no decision on that yet, but I’ve watched that case closely.

               In an instance where opposing counsel in an underlying matter had caused harm or was alleged to have caused harm, the litigation privilege or absolute immunity protects that attorney from any civil remedy that I might have against them.  The Statewide Grievance, while I’m able to pursue that, on paper it looks good and I could pursue that, but sadly the first hurdle that somebody would have to go through and cross is the local reviewing panel; and I would submit that sadly it’s a big state, but it’s a small fraternity of attorneys who, in many cases, will -- it’s difficult to say respectfully, but, especially when there’s a pro se party bringing the complaint forward, in many cases some of the attorneys would kind of look the other way and protect the individual.

               In my instance, what I also experience is getting past a review panel of finding of probable cause, disciplinary proceedings, a public hearing of discipline, and two weeks prior to a decision actually being issued in the matter, the attorney was allowed to resign with a waiver in an unrelated matter which immediately closed mine, as well as two other grievance issues pending against them; and, while for disciplinary counsel’s office that might seem, you know, like a home run because they’re able to resolve three or four matters all with one resignation, for somebody like me, it’s devastating because I was the only person who had no other remedy, none whatsoever. 

               And, so -- so even though there was probable cause of misconduct, there was clear and convincing evidence at the public hearing of the misconduct, this attorney who had -- who at 69 years old went and built a house down in North Carolina, he’d already decided that he wasn’t going to be practicing law in the state of Connecticut anymore anyway, so, really, there’s no penalty to him, but the damages to me are very real. 

               And, so, that’s why I stand before you today is -- with some very specific suggestions to rule changes, very small and very minor, which I think make sure that at least the Court is very conscious of when accepting a resignation from an attorney of what the ramifications that might have for their potential litigants. 

               And while I focused on Rule 2-52, I would like to point out that I think that there is the possibility that, I think in any rule change, of course, it may implicate other minor changes or at least review of other rules. 

               And, so, I think, possibly 2-59 and 2-71, the client security fund, I wasn’t a client, so I can’t make a claim under the client security fund. 

               You know, I know it was kind of a sprint to put all that information out in five minutes.  I don’t do this for a living, so I did my best.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much and we have what you have -- what you submitted in writing and we’ll review that.

               MR. LYNCH:  Any questions at all?

               (Pause.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you. 

               MR. LYNCH:  Thank you. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/