By: Bruce Matzkin

Attorneys are required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the ethical practice of law. In Connecticut, however, powerful and connected lawyers are protected from consequences for even serious misconduct, while powerless lawyers, typically solo practitioners and small firms, are targeted for minor – even fabricated – violations to make numbers and justify salaries.

Connecticut’s volunteer Statewide Grievance Committee (SGC) is the body that adjudicates and punishes violations by lawyers, but the disciplinary process is administered by the taxpayer-funded Office of Statewide Bar Counsel which employs five attorneys.  The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which prosecutes lawyer misconduct, employs five additional taxpayer-funded attorneys.

Two cases demonstrate this disparate treatment. The first was a grievance against two lawyers from a large firm for a litigation conflict of interest – a major ethical violation – that a judge allowed and the SGC then whitewashed. The second is an ongoing disciplinary proceeding against me.

Lawyers’ Conflict Is Allowed by Judge, Covered Up By SGC

In 2014, Attys. Elizabeth Acee and Michael Conway, then partners in LeclairRyan, a powerful (since bankrupted) law firm, entered a court appearance to represent a macaroni and cheese restaurant, Mac N’ Out, against a competitor suing it, Macdaddy’s.

The problem: Acee and Conway already had an active appearance for Macdaddy’s in a related action.

This was a flagrant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Connecticut Superior Court (now U.S. District Court) Judge Kari Anne Dooley had an ethical duty, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, to stop it.  However, Judge Dooley permitted Acee’s and Conway’s conflict in proceedings before her.

Macdaddy’s owner therefore filed a grievance documenting Acee’s and Conway’s conflicting appearances for Mac N’ Out against Macdaddy’s.  But instead of investigating, the SGC dismissed the grievance with a “no probable cause” finding.

The written decision, issued by SGC panel counsel Attorney Michael Georgetti, did not acknowledge the conflicting appearances and did not mention Mac N’ Out.  It was a complete whitewashing of not only the conflict but also Judge Dooley’s violation of judicial ethics by permitting it.

The electronic dockets of Acee’s and Conway’s conflicting appearances were subsequently erased from the court website, although transcripts and copies of the grievance and the SGC’s dismissal document Acee’s and Conway’s conflict, Judge Dooley’s allowance of it, and the SGC’s coverup.

My Disciplinary Proceeding

In June 2022, a former client filed a grievance claiming I was “shaking her down” for a $500 fee.  The Rules of Practice provide for summary dismissal if a grievance “only alleges a fee dispute,” but Statewide Bar Counsel Michael Bowler (since retired) nevertheless referred it to the Statewide Grievance Committee.

SGC panel counsel Gregory Benoit, a small claims collection lawyer in his private practice, concluded that my fee agreement “may be too vague” so that Rule 1.5(c), which covers fee agreements, “may have been violated.”  

The Rules of Practice require probable cause that a lawyer “is guilty of misconduct” (not “may be,” a lower standard) or else the SGC “shall dismiss the complaint.”  Nevertheless, Benoit didn’t dismiss it.

Prosecution of my case was assigned to rookie Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Butler, who explained in an official letter: “Your fee agreement is completely bereft of any indication as to whether or not the client would ‘be responsible for any court costs and expenses of litigation’ during your representation and, therefore, violates Rule 1.5 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The client’s matter was before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), which has no costs.  Rule 1.5(c) requires fee agreements to inform “whether and to what extent” a client will be responsible for costs, but Butler paraphrased the rule as “whether or not,” changing the grammatical meaning so he could claim I violated it because my fee agreement did not say, “There are no CHRO costs.”

Utter nonsense, but that’s what Butler conjured up to justify refusing to dismiss the matter.

Whether acting in concert or not, Bowler, Benoit and Butler have railroaded me into a baseless disciplinary matter for the last 18 months.  It has been a source of stress, distraction, expense, fear for my livelihood, and time taken from my law practice, clients, and family.

Butler recently left the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and was replaced on my case by veteran disciplinary counsel, Attorney Marie-Louise Villar, who also refuses to dismiss it.

I await my disciplinary hearing.

Bruce Matzkin is a solo attorney practicing employment law in Connecticut and Massachusetts.  

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of Connecticut Inside Investigator.

Have an opinion to share? Email your opinion submission to opeds@insideinvestigator.org

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.