plaintiff violated rule in Connecticut

2008This result is reached because once the confidence protected has been breached, the privilege has no valid continuing office to perform.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gebbie v. Cadle Co., 49 Conn. App. 265, 274 , 714 A.2d 678 (1998). 13 In the absence of any dispute about the underlying facts, we conclude that the trial court properly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the plaintiff violated rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2008This result is reached because once the confidence protected has been breached, the privilege has no valid continuing office to perform.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gebbie v. Cadle Co., 49 Conn. App. 265, 274 , 714 A.2d 678 (1998). 13 In the absence of any dispute about the underlying facts, we conclude that the trial court properly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the plaintiff violated rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2007As a result, the applicable standard of appellate review, while deferential, cannot unduly restrict a reviewing court's inherent power "to inquire into the conduct of their own officers, and to discipline them for misconduct." In re Peck, supra, 88 Conn. at 457 , 91 A. 274 . *327 The parties to the present appeal disagree as to the applicable deferential standard of review by which to evaluate the finding that the plaintiff violated rule 3.1.

2007As a result, the applicable standard of appellate review, while deferential, cannot unduly restrict a reviewing court's inherent power "to inquire into the conduct of their own officers, and to discipline them for misconduct." In re Peck, supra, 88 Conn. at 457 , 91 A. 274 . *327 The parties to the present appeal disagree as to the applicable deferential standard of review by which to evaluate the finding that the plaintiff violated rule 3.1.

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2006Cf. State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138, 179 , 869 A.2d 192 (2005) (reviewing court must first address defendant’s insufficiency of evidence claim if preserved and adequate record exists); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge *108 if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).

2004Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not make a state ment that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .” Because the committee reasonably could have found that the statements contained in the plaintiffs letter were false in violation of rule 8.2 (a), the plaintiff must now provide evidence of an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. 2 See Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 49-52 , 835 A.2d 998 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 , 124 S. Ct. 2422 , 15

2004Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not make a state ment that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .” Because the committee reasonably could have found that the statements contained in the plaintiffs letter were false in violation of rule 8.2 (a), the plaintiff must now provide evidence of an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. 2 See Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 49-52 , 835 A.2d 998 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 , 124 S. Ct. 2422 , 15

2004Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not make a state ment that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .” Because the committee reasonably could have found that the statements contained in the plaintiffs letter were false in violation of rule 8.2 (a), the plaintiff must now provide evidence of an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. 2 See Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 49-52 , 835 A.2d 998 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 , 124 S. Ct. 2422 , 15

2004We need not consider the merits of those claims, however, because we find that the court properly determined that the record before the committee was insufficient to support the conclusion that the plaintiff violated rule 8.4(3). [3] Practice Book § 2-38(a) provides in relevant part: "A respondent may appeal to the superior court a decision by the statewide grievance committee or a reviewing committee reprimanding the respondent...." [4] The committee relies on State v. Caballero, 49 Conn.App. 486, 492 , 714 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 924 , 719 A.2d 1170 (1998), in support of its clai

2004We need not consider the merits of those claims, however, because we find that the court properly determined that the record before the committee was insufficient to support the conclusion that the plaintiff violated rule 8.4(3). [3] Practice Book § 2-38(a) provides in relevant part: "A respondent may appeal to the superior court a decision by the statewide grievance committee or a reviewing committee reprimanding the respondent...." [4] The committee relies on State v. Caballero, 49 Conn.App. 486, 492 , 714 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 924 , 719 A.2d 1170 (1998), in support of its clai

2004Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not make a state ment that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .” Because the committee reasonably could have found that the statements contained in the plaintiffs letter were false in violation of rule 8.2 (a), the plaintiff must now provide evidence of an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. 2 See Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 49-52 , 835 A.2d 998 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 , 124 S. Ct. 2422 , 15

2004Rule 8.2 (a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not make a state ment that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .” Because the committee reasonably could have found that the statements contained in the plaintiffs letter were false in violation of rule 8.2 (a), the plaintiff must now provide evidence of an objective, reasonable belief that his statements were true. 2 See Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 49-52 , 835 A.2d 998 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 , 124 S. Ct. 2422 , 15

2004We need not consider the merits of those claims, however, because we find that the court properly determined that the record before the committee was insufficient to support the conclusion that the plaintiff violated rule 8.4(3). [3] Practice Book § 2-38(a) provides in relevant part: "A respondent may appeal to the superior court a decision by the statewide grievance committee or a reviewing committee reprimanding the respondent...." [4] The committee relies on State v. Caballero, 49 Conn.App. 486, 492 , 714 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 924 , 719 A.2d 1170 (1998), in support of its clai

2004We need not consider the merits of those claims, however, because we find that the court properly determined that the record before the committee was insufficient to support the conclusion that the plaintiff violated rule 8.4(3). [3] Practice Book § 2-38(a) provides in relevant part: "A respondent may appeal to the superior court a decision by the statewide grievance committee or a reviewing committee reprimanding the respondent...." [4] The committee relies on State v. Caballero, 49 Conn.App. 486, 492 , 714 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 924 , 719 A.2d 1170 (1998), in support of its clai