Opinion ID: 6357359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Classical Aggrievement

Text: Standing is established by showing that the party claiming it is authorized by statute to bring suit or is classically aggrieved ... The fundamental test for determining aggrievement encompasses a well-settled twofold determination: first, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully demonstrate a specific, personal and legal interest in [the subject matter of the challenged action], as distinguished from a general interest, such as is the concern of all members of the community as a whole. Second, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully establish that this specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the [challenged action].... Aggrievement is established if there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest ... has been adversely affected. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) May v. Coffey , 291 Conn. 106 , 112, 967 A.2d 495 (2009). The relevant case authority has repeatedly held that persons filing attorney grievance complaints lack any cognizable specific, personal and legal interest in the discipline of an attorney. See, e.g., Rousseau v. Statewide Grievance Committee , 163 Conn. App. 765 , 769-71, 133 A.3d 947 , cert. denied, 321 Conn. 908 , 135 A.3d 280 (2016) ; Lewis v. Slack , supra, 110 Conn. App. at 647-48 , 955 A.2d 620 . The plaintiffs attempt to distinguish these cases and establish a specific personal and legal interest in the decision as to whether to discipline the grieved attorneys  in their particular case. They argue that since they are entitled to-and will invariably receive-an award of restitution if their complaint is reviewed by the Statewide Grievance Committee, the decision as to whether to discipline these attorneys directly affects the plaintiffs' receipt of monetary restitution, which is an interest separate and apart from that of the  general public. On this basis, the plaintiffs argue, they have been harmed in a unique fashion by the conduct of the defendants and have established a colorable claim of injury .... (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lewis v. Slack , supra, 110 Conn. App. at 647 , 955 A.2d 620 . The court is not persuaded. Regardless of the statistical probabilities the plaintiffs may bring to bear, the potential for restitution is theoretical and conjectural, rather than established fact. It is impossible to know with certainty whether the Statewide Grievance Committee, if it conducted a review, would ultimately decide to discipline the attorneys involved, much less the sanctions or penalties the Statewide Grievance Committee, in its discretion, would deem appropriate for the offense. Under the statutes, rules and case law governing attorney grievance proceedings, the plaintiffs have no legally protected right to restitution. Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to require restitution from a grieved attorney is made in the context of a sanction or punitive measure, and not for the purpose of compensating the victim. It is the interest in appropriate attorney discipline that is arguably affected by the decision to require restitution-not the financial interest of the person making the complaint. In that regard, the plaintiffs' stake in the outcome of these proceedings is no different from that of all members of the community-that attorney misconduct be discouraged and deterred through a comprehensive system of attorney discipline. The plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a colorable claim of injury to an interest which is arguably protected by  the statute in question and, therefore, have failed to establish classical aggrievement.