about things that matter i am before this court today as i was before the connecticut supreme court proximately one month ago because i have chosen not to keep silent about something that matter what is the current status there is a stain place there is no stay in place there is no stamp the decision is pending still before the suspension that has been ordered d by the federal district court after an order to show cause hearing the judge however i am still not reinstated and it makes a difference in this case because the federal district court judge said that i could not be rehabbed needed to federal court practice until i was really at knitted or nineteen that because although the period of suspension has expired on the state court side there were a large number of conditions that were placed upon the admission mission  a pending applications of fairly standard scuse me just once and that's a fairly standard condition now is it not applying for readmission after suspension i will say it certainly is in vermont because i used to represent attorneys who were applying for readmission and they that was always the process that went that took place so there are other hoops to jump through regardless of what the connecticut supreme court  prior to what we have here the you a my right and one of the arguments on the other side is that you and also one of the points made by the district court is that you have never actually contested the factual finding in actuality there were four counts and some of the matters that were receptive did not occur let me just give you an example in one instance a referring judge who made a referral to the disciplinary authorities contend that i had not made my players available for a deposition in a specific case while in actuality the attorney in the case who did that w not me it was white's attorney who was representing plaintiffs about the client's fund account it is correct that there was a two hundred thousand track that was placed in that account the position that i have taken is that despite the fact that that money was placed into the account the court did not simply just divorce that from the circumstances under which know understand what they're in front of the supreme court thank you ms miller you have reserved two minutes thank you may please the poor my name is robert frost from the law from the frost bussard in new haven in this matter representing the federal review committee for the district of connecticut it was not clear a clear abus discretion for judge underhill to enter a reciprocal order of discipline in this particular matter suspending miss miller for one year retroactive to the commencement which would have been november of twenty ok retroactive to that date which means that effectively her federal suspension expired in november of twenty one thousand because the order was made retroactive to the commencement of the state's suspension and in addition i think the record reflects that miss miller did seek a stay in the federal district court and judge underhill conditionally granted with the kaviak that if there was a stay at any point in the state proceedings there would be a stay of his order in the federal proceedings but my understanding is no stay was ever entered in the state court proceeding so she miss miller was effectively under suspension for the full period of time  connecticut which is common in other districts there is a procedure where the federal grievance committee does step in and take somewhat of an advocacy role by bringing a present in it which we did in this case under the local rule based on its being made aware of a discipline another priest another jurisdiction and in this case it was connecticut so there was a procedure which was followed as it is in every case where those that were another disciplinary matter dismay sanction comes the attention of the district court and so i filed the presentment order of the committee or that's one of the same for it's it's one of the same because under our rules the federal give these committees charged with the responsibility of taking a step of filing a present which is how this matter dion's a district in a district court correct and so i filed that present based on the state court discipline issued by judge shaban in the state court and that matter went to an order to show cause you're before judge underhill miss miller filed a motion to dismiss and was given an opportunity to add any additional material to the record before that hearing we did not oppose her efforts to do that in fact it was an effort i think to add some supplemental material which we did not oppose we did have a hearing and judge underhill in his written ruling as the court knows basically followed the four that the selling factors that are from the united states supreme court case the selling case which had been sort of incorporated into our local rule and i understand it that it's followed in and implemented in other districts and that's namely that whether the we don't we don't mean litigate all the facts  in a reciprocal discipline proceeding in federal court when it's based on a state court discipline is what happens mr frost's if there is a credible allegation of racial disparities in other words if the federal grievance committee or the federal court determines based on the record that although there was some form of underlying misconduct some attorneys who engaged in the misconduct are disciplined by the state court system and others are not based on you know whatever protected characteristic so this issue did obviously come up before the  court the way it was presented to judge underhill was i guess miss miller filed a motion to dismiss but i think in his ruling he treated it as an affirmative defense and indicated that there's no authority to bring that sort of affirmative defense to the discipline but if there is a pattern or some indication of disparate treatment that either the district court in the st instance could take that into account i suppose but but but  when you say take that into account is that take that into account we have mitigation or in determining whether it's appropriate to impose reciprocal discipline i suppose both but i think primarily doesn't mean it's imposition of a sanction in the federal district courthouse to exactly mirror what is happening in the state correct and our rule is written as it shall impose reciprocal discipline unless it's so and i think in this court's decision in re roman has indicated that that's basically rebuttable presumption which in this case to the court's question if there were detail factual allegations war strong evidence of potential discriminatory animists or or conduct by disciplinary authorities i suppose the court on the reciprocal matter could take that into account and decide that substantially similar discipline conclusion but but if they were not conclusory and there was some some basis to believe that this book treatment had occurred based on race or whatever other protected category then what you're telling us is that the to impose no discipline as a matter of discretion as it has not discretion under the rules abstention a different discipline could include no discipline that would be my reading of that language and whether there would be other opportunities for a aggrieved respondent like miss miller to bring injunctive relief or were some other sort of relief in another forum that maybe another remedy as well but in terms of how to resolve the reciprocal discipline matter i think the court had the authority to take it into account in this case since the court noted as an alternate basis for its ruling he did not agree that miss miller had laid out detailed strong evidence of either selective enforcement discriminatory enforcement however you want to care as it was not apparent on the face of this record and that was our position my position in my brief was that it's can be difficult when there's a lot of material and very broad statements made to understand what are the facts that specifically support the conclusion that ms miller wants this court to draw and i understand that in one or two instances she may have some response but this was obviously discipline predicated on multiple matters that the concerns of those courts were about patterns of behavior as well as the most serious allegation as indicated by counts related to her own authorized practice of law before the connecticut appellate court in violation of a prior connecticut appellate court order that she not be allowed to participate or to represent clients before that court so that became account of an additional act of misconduct i don't think miss miller has contested that or accept the responsibility for that and what is in front of the connecticut supreme court that's pending determination i and if there's nothing further from the court i would rest on on our arguments in our brief so we're really talking about his reinstatement well i can address that you're iran or so and i appear and have experience with the state court system in connecticut there were conditions placed on her in the state court discipline that she has to reapply and there's a process then an investigation by the superior court before someone can be readmitted and she also had a condition of a monitor so that's another condition that's added to her discipline and she would have to a member of the bar who gauged to keep an eye on correct and then when you get to where i come in at the district court level in federal court you cannot be reinstated unless you're in good standing in another jurisdiction and i know that mr miller's and i believe may be represented in other jurisdictions besides connecticut but i know in connecticut right now she is not in good standing so she would not be able to be readmitted in the district court of connecticut until she fulfills that requirement so that's why it's still in some ways linked to what's happening in connecticut state court does not answer the court's question thank thank you mr frost ms miller could you just help me understand what precisely is in front of the connecticut supreme court it's the appeal of the underlying of the underlying or of suspension ok and the conditions that were placed by the president judge upon any possible reinstatement practice so some of those if the connecticut supreme court agreed with you it could give you a partial relief if you will you could be reinstated no conditions that sort of thing that could happen however let me just say st that i have no quarrel with the right of the courts and in fact a duty of the courts to properly discipline attorneys when appropriate however that application of discipline must be fair and just that's a principle that has been because of racial reasons or because of the kind of practice that they had and that is what i have been argued arguing before this court i want to specifically point out some of the specific facts that i did bring before the presentment judge that everyone continues to say there was no evidence to support in the the presentment hearing there was evidence from a caucasian female attorney who simply wrote a letter of complaint about me to the disciplinary authorities that then sparked an entire investigation and ended up in a count of the presentment on the other hand i submitted a letter to the disciplinary authority as well as the statewide grievance committee and we have both into t's in connecticut and i named approximately eight caucasian attorneys who had engaged in misconduct and i knew all of these except one named cases dates times manner of misconduct most of which had occurred in the presence of judges and i asked that the disciplinary authorities investigate they refused saying that i had to file a specific complaint individually for each one of these attorneys well the attorney who followed the letter about me admitted at trial that she didn't even have to go through that process so even that evidence itself shows that there is disparity in the way that attorneys are investigated and bring to the court's attention i know just got a few seconds that the state of california in november  th teen came out with a report that was based on approximately thirty years of study and they concluded that african american attorneys in california were subject to discipline harsher discipline then their caucasian peers in at least three to or more times their colleagues that was tz that distinctly significant they haven't decided let's do the right thing let's look at this on the other hand connecticut has been completely resistant to any of the matters that i have brought forward with regard to the disparity of discipline african american attorneys and have in one forum when i initially found  federal court saying that there was disparity in discipline in the state argued that the attorney general's office argued that i shouldn't be in federal court and that the younger abstention doctrines should be applied they said i've got a perfect forum for that in state court i ended up in state court and then we had a judge who notwithstanding what the attorney general had said stayed at the outcome his belief that bringing up issues of disparity racial disparity discrimination in discipline of attorneys he did not think was appropriate in a presentment proceeding so in the one hand in one form they say go back to stake or when you go to court they don't want to hear the decision of judge shapen made it very clear that while he gave lip service to saying that he was a courting due process and listening to these substantive constitutional arguments that i was making it was clear that he believed that they should not is correct i have litigation about this i currently have pending before the connecticut claims commission or a complaint which covers all of these issues and shows the past practice however you can't bring such a suit against the state especially since we're talking the judicial branch unless you get permission of the claims commissioner i'm not really and that's pending that's that's pending but the  position that i have continued to take is that there is an issue of disparity of discipline of attorneys and that matter has not been effectively heard by either the state or federal courts i think that judge  underhill simply rubber stamped what was done by the state of connecticut and have effectively caused me to be out of practice both in state and federal court and one other matter i might bring to the court's attention this is not simply a matter of me just being and where that membership has been lapsed for more than ten years they sought reciprocal discipline they are despite my arguments that should not take place the state of michigan has now suspended me on reciprocal discipline for year effect in february of this year which means there's a mother year of suspension by a jurisdiction that under connecticut's rules they could then hold that suspension against me and the reinstatement on that basis in effect stacking the discipline for something that's already been time served it's not just i believe that it's unfair and i would ask the court