Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee

Citations

• 228 Conn. App. 852

Syllabus

The plaintiff attorney appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismiss- ing his appeal from the decision of the defendant Statewide Grievance Committee, which found that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by filing a motion that contained statements about the integrity of the judiciary with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly dismissed his appeal because the record did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his statements violated rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Held: The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal because the griev- ance committee's determination that the plaintiff had violated rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct was not contrary to applicable law, as its reviewing committee applied the correct legal standard in considering whether the plaintiff had an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal was not improper because sufficient evidence existed to support the grievance committee's decision that the plaintiff had violated rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Con- duct, as his statements, in attacking the judges' competence and alleged faithfulness to the law, attacked the integrity of the Probate Court and the Superior Court, and the plaintiff failed to provide proof of an objective and reasonable basis for his statements. The trial court did not err by failing to conclude that a reprimand was not an appropriate sanction because the court was not required to make specific findings regarding aggravating and mitigating factors under the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, there was no indication that the court did not take those standards into account in reach- ing its decision, and the grievance committee did not abuse its discretion in issuing the reprimand because it properly found that the plaint