Case Title: In re Solomon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Solomon  In re Solomon (95-280); 164 Vt 602; 664 A.2d 274 [Filed 25-Jul-1995] ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-280 JUNE TERM, 1995 In re Alan M. Solomon, Esq. } Original Jurisdiction } } } } In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Alan M. Solomon having been reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee of the State of Connecticut, and all reprimands in that state being public, Alan M. Solomon is hereby publicly reprimanded. A.0. 9, Rule 17D. BY THE COURT: Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice John A. Dooley, Associate Justice James L. Morse, Associate Justice Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice [x] Publish [ ] Do Not Publish -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF CONNECTICUT Daniel B. Horwitch Statewide Bar Counsel (203) 568-5157 STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE Second Floor - Suite Two 287 Main Street, East Hartford, Connecticut 06118-1885 04/20/95 LORRAINE MORGANTI ALAN M SOLOMON 30 RIVER VIEW COURT SOLOMON KRUPNIKOFF & CHESHIRE CT 06410 35 PLEASANT STREET P. 0. BOX 835 MERIDEN CT 06450 RE: GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT #93-0408 MORGANTI vs. SOLOMON Dear Complainant & Respondent: The Statewide Grievance Committee has carefully studied the record of the above-referenced grievance complaint, including the proposed decision of the reviewing committee, which conducted a hearing in this matter on July 14, 1994. Based upon its review of the record, the Statewide Grievance Committee, at a meeting held on April 20, 1995, has decided to adopt the proposed decision of the reviewing committee. Accordingly, the Respondent, Alan M. Solomon, is hereby REPRIMANDED by the Statewide Grievance Committee. Sincerely, Daniel B. Horwitch cc: Attorney John H. Welch Jr STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE Lorraine Morganti Complainant : vs. : Grievance Complaint #93-0408 Allan Solomon Respondent : PROPOSED DECISION Pursuant to Practice Book Section 27a, the undersigned, duly- appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on July 14, 1994. The hearing addressed the record of -the complaint filed on November 2, 1993 and the probable cause determination rendered by the Statewide Grievance on April 21, 1994, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 8.4(c) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Statewide Grievance Committee's finding of probable cause was contrary to the finding of no probable cause filed by the grievance panel for the Judicial District of New Haven at Geographical Areas 7 & 8. Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on May 31, 1994. The Complainant and the Respondent appeared and were heard by this reviewing committee. This Reviewing Committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence: The Respondent's firm represented the Complainant in a divorce action that was finalized on September 30, 1993. In connection with the divorce, property in Cheshire, Connecticut was conveyed to the Complainant from Richard Morganti by quit claim deed. On or about October 19, 1993 the Complainant was informed by the Cheshire town clerk's office that the deed had not been recorded. The Complainant requested the deed for recording from the Respondent's office but was informed the file needed to be reviewed. Subsequently, the Respondent's office offered to give the Complainant the unrecorded deed in exchange for a check for the balance of the Complainant's bill. The Respondent informed an office assistant not to release the deed until after he was paid. By letter dated November 1, 1993 the Respondent forwarded the deed conveying the Cheshire property to the Complainant for recording. This reviewing committee finds the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence: This reviewing committee concludes that the Respondent intentionally neglected to timely record the Complainant's deed because of a claim for legal fees in violation of Rules 1.3 and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that by retaining the deed, the Respondent prejudiced the rights of the Complainant by. exposing her to possible harm. The committee noted a lack of advance notice to the Complainant that the deed would not be recorded without payment. Since we conclude that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, we recommend that the Statewide Grievance Committee reprimand the Respondent. Attorney Suzanne E. Caron Ms. Nan K. Crowley