Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Burbank

Citations

• 195 Conn. App. 416

Syllabus

The respondent attorney appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court suspending him from the practice of law for one year. The respondent, who was admitted to practice law in both Maine and Con- necticut, had been involved in civil litigation in Maine involving water- front property that he owned in joint tenancy with several members of his family. After the trial court rendered judgment in that action, the respondent appealed as a self-represented party to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which affirmed the judgment of the Maine Superior Court and concluded that the respondent had engaged in misconduct while prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, sanctions were imposed against the respondent in the form of an award of attorney's fees and costs. Subsequently, Maine's Board of Overseers of the Bar suspended the respondent from practicing law in Maine for one year on the ground that he had violated Maine's Rules of Professional Conduct. Thereafter, in the present case, the petitioner, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, filed an application seeking commensurate disciplinary action against the respondent pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 2-39). Subse- quently, the trial court found that commensurate discipline was appro- priate with respect to the respondent's Connecticut law license and ordered the respondent suspended from the practice of law in Connecti- cut for one year. On appeal, the respondent claimed, inter alia, that because he was a self-represented party at the time he engaged in the alleged misconduct that led to his suspension in Maine, the disciplinary action against his law license in Maine, and by extension, in Connecticut, violated his right as a citizen to petition the government for a redress of grievances as protected by the first amendment to the federal constitu- tion and violated his rights to due process and equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in