Opinion
HHDCV166067742S
07-25-2017
Enrico Vaccaro v. Statewide Grievance Committee
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Antonio C. Robaina, J.
The petitioner herein, attorney Enrico Vaccaro, appeals from a decision of the Statewide Grievance Committee which affirmed a Reviewing Committee. The appeal is taken pursuant to Practice Book Section 2-38.
A summary of the background of the case, based on the Committee's findings, is that Mr. Vaccaro was approached with respect to the handling of a vexatious litigation lawsuit. He picked up the file from the prior attorney and spoke to the prospective clients with respect to the claim. During the interview he advised them as to the statute of limitations and provided a proposed fee agreement. They decided not to retain Mr. Vaccaro and ultimately filed a lawsuit in a pro se capacity. They telephoned Mr. Vaccaro on several occasions and left messages requesting the return of the file to the previous attorney. They also sent certified letters requesting the return of the file without response. More than a year after the certified letters, Mr. Vaccaro advised them that he had located the file and it could be picked up. A grievance complaint was filed.
The Reviewing Committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee found that Mr. Vaccaro " engaged in unethical conduct in connection with the return of the Complainant's file. Despite requests to the Respondent, the Respondent failed to properly deliver the file to the complainant, in violation of rule 1.15(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent's 'misplacement' of the Complainant's file did not relieve him of his duty under rule 1.15(e) to promptly return the file that was in his possession." The reviewing committee issued a reprimand. Upon review of the decision by the Statewide Grievance Committee, the decision was affirmed.
The standard used to determine whether an attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct is that of clear and convincing evidence. Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn.App. 601, 931 A.2d 319, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929, 934 A.2d 244 (2007). Upon review by the court, the standard is the " clearly erroneous standard" which provides that the Grievance Panel's " . . . Determination is clearly erroneous only in cases in which the record contains no evidence to support it, or in cases in which there is evidence, but the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 612. " Additionally, because the applicable standard of proof for determining whether an attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct is clear and convincing evidence . . . we must consider whether the [fact finder's] decision was based on clear and convincing evidence." Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296, 322-23, 796 A.2d 516 (2002).
The court finds that the underlying record contains sufficient evidence to support the decision of the reviewing committee and the grievance committee according to the standard articulated above. The court is not persuaded by the argument advanced by the petitioner that Rule 1.15(e) applies only in the case where there is an attorney-client relationship. Taken to its logical conclusion in this case, it would suggest that an attorney who takes possession of a file has no responsibility for its safekeeping or its return. Nor is the court persuaded by the argument that the file did not belong to the potential client, but instead to their prior attorney. He did not return it to either of them, and he failed to safeguard it as was his responsibility.
Finally, the court finds that the sanction imposed, a reprimand, is appropriate and is not an abuse of discretion in light of the record.
Accordingly, the decision of the statewide grievance committee is hereby affirmed, and the appeal dismissed.