(a) The State-Wide Grievance Committee may designate at least three members of the committee, including at least one-third who are not attorneys, to serve as a reviewing subcommittee for each determination made by a panel on a complaint. The committee shall regularly rotate membership on reviewing subcommittees and assignments of complaints from the various judicial districts. The State-Wide Grievance Committee or the subcommittee, if any, shall hold a hearing concerning the complaint if the panel determined that probable cause exists that the attorney is guilty of misconduct. If the grievance panel determined that probable cause does not exist that the attorney is guilty of misconduct, the committee or subcommittee shall review the determination of no probable cause, take evidence if it deems it appropriate and, if it determines that probable cause does exist that the attorney is guilty of misconduct, shall take the following action: (1) If the State-Wide Grievance Committee reviewed the determination of the grievance panel it shall hold a hearing concerning the complaint or assign the matter to a subcommittee to hold the hearing; or (2) if a subcommittee reviewed the determination of the grievance panel it shall hold a hearing concerning the complaint or refer the matter to the State-Wide Grievance Committee which shall assign it to another subcommittee to hold the hearing. The committee or subcommittee shall not make a probable cause determination based, in full or in part, on a claim of misconduct not alleged in the complaint without first notifying the respondent that it is considering such action and affording the respondent the opportunity to be heard. An attorney who maintains his office for the practice of law in the same judicial district as the respondent may not sit on the reviewing subcommittee for that case.
(b) Any hearing held by the committee or subcommittee shall be public and on the record. The complainant shall be entitled to be present at all hearings on the complaint and to have counsel present. At such hearing the respondent shall have the right to counsel, to be heard in his own defense and to present evidence and witnesses in his behalf. At the conclusion of the evidence, the complainant and the respondent shall have the opportunity to make a statement either individually or through counsel. The committee or subcommittee may request oral argument.
(c) The subcommittee shall conclude any hearing or hearings and shall render its proposed decision not later than ninety days from the date the panel's determination of probable cause or no probable cause was filed with the State-Wide Grievance Committee. The subcommittee may file a motion for extension of time not to exceed thirty days with the State-Wide Grievance Committee which shall grant the motion only for good cause shown. If the subcommittee does not complete its action on a complaint within the period of time provided in this section, the State-Wide Grievance Committee shall, on motion of the complainant or the respondent or on its own motion, inquire into the delay and determine the appropriate course of action. The failure of the subcommittee to complete its action on a complaint within the period of time provided in this section shall not be cause for dismissal of the complaint.
(d) If the subcommittee finds probable cause to believe the attorney has violated the criminal law of this state it shall report its findings to the State-Wide Grievance Committee.
(e) The subcommittee may propose in its decision that the complaint be dismissed, that conditions be imposed in accordance with the rules established by the judges of the Superior Court, that the attorney be reprimanded or that the attorney be presented to the Superior Court for reprimand, suspension or disbarment.
(f) The subcommittee shall submit its proposed decision to the State-Wide Grievance Committee, with copies to the complainant and respondent. The proposed decision shall be a matter of public record.
(g) If, after its review of a complaint pursuant to this section, a subcommittee agrees with the determination of the grievance panel that probable cause does not exist that the attorney is guilty of misconduct and there has been no finding of probable cause by the State-Wide Grievance Committee or a subcommittee, the subcommittee may dismiss the complaint within the time period set forth in subsection (c) of this section without review by the committee. The subcommittee shall file its decision dismissing the complaint with the State-Wide Grievance Committee, together with the record of the matter, and shall send a copy of the decision to the complainant and the respondent. Such decision shall be a matter of public record.
(h) When the committee conducts the hearing or hearings under this section, it shall render its decision not later than four months from the date the panel's determination of probable cause or no probable cause was filed with the State-Wide Grievance Committee. The State-Wide Grievance Committee may dismiss the complaint, impose conditions in accordance with the rules established by the judges of the Superior Court, reprimand the respondent or direct the State-Wide Bar Counsel to file a presentment against the respondent.
(P.A. 85-456, S. 6, 11; P.A. 86-276, S. 8, 15; P.A. 88-152, S. 6; P.A. 93-370, S. 2; P.A. 98-81, S. 18, 20; P.A. 07-217, S. 188.)
History: P.A. 85-456 effective July 1, 1986; P.A. 86-276 substantially revised or replaced prior provisions re the review by the state-wide grievance committee of the findings and recommendations of the panel, the holding of public or private hearings and the rendering within four months of a decision by the committee with provisions re the authority of the committee to designate subcommittees, the review by the committee or subcommittee of the panel's determination, the requirement that any hearing be public and on the record, hearing procedures, the rendering of a proposed decision by a subcommittee within 90 days or a decision of the committee within four months; P.A. 88-152 amended Subsec. (c) to provide that the failure of the subcommittee to complete its action on a complaint within the specified time period shall not be cause for dismissal of the complaint; P.A. 93-370 added Subsec. (a) (1) and (2) to specify the action to be taken by the committee and subcommittee, respectively, when it has reviewed the panel's determination of no probable cause and determines that probable cause does exist, amended Subsec. (e) to authorize the subcommittee to propose in its decision that conditions be imposed in accordance with the rules established by the judges of the superior court, inserted a new Subsec. (g) authorizing the subcommittee to dismiss the complaint in certain circumstances, and relettered the remaining subsection accordingly, and amended Subsec. (h) to authorize the state-wide grievance committee to impose conditions in accordance with the rules established by the judges of the superior court; P.A. 98-81 amended Subsec. (a) by prohibiting committee or subcommittee from making probable cause determination based on claim of misconduct not alleged in complaint without notifying respondent and affording respondent opportunity to be heard, effective May 22, 1998; P.A. 07-217 made a technical change in Subsec. (g), effective July 12, 2007.
Cited. 215 C. 162; Id., 469; Id., 517; 216 C. 228; 224 C. 29; 227 C. 802; Id., 829; 234 C. 539; 235 C. 693; 239 C. 449.
Cited. 41 CA 671; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 671; 43 CA 265; 46 CA 450.
Reviewing committee that heard plaintiff's case was improperly constituted when it acted without a public member. 47 CS 5.
Subsec. (c):
Failure of grievance committee's subcommittee to comply with mandates of statute does not deprive trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. 211 C. 232. Cited. 219 C. 473; 220 C. 86.
Failure of a reviewing committee to abide by the time frames established under Subsec. and Practice Book Sec. 2-35 does not divest trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary action. 206 CA 515.
Subsec. (h):
Does not establish a jurisdictional constraint; judgment of Appellate Court in 41 CA 671 reversed. 240 C. 671.
Notes of Decisions
Doe v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 694 A.2d 1218 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 76× “We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude the failure of the statewide grievance committee to comply with the timing requirements of General Statutes § 51-90g (g) and Practice Book…”
Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Rozbicki, 558 A.2d 986 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 35× “The grievance committee appointed a subcommittee to review the complaint, as permitted by General Statutes § 51-90g (a). 2 Although § 51-90g (c) required the subcommittee to conclude any hearings and render its proposed decision on the complaint within ninety days of the date…”
Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 726 A.2d 1154 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 20× “On November 27,1995, the local panel forwarded its findings to the committee pursuant to what is now Practice Book § 2-32 (i) 7 and General Statutes § 51-90f (d), 8 and the committee, in accordance with what is now Practice Book § 2-35 (a) 9 and General Statutes § 51-90g (a), 10…”
Weiss v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 633 A.2d 282 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 16× “7 Pursuant to General Statutes § 51-90g (a) and Practice Book § 27J (a), 8 the statewide grievance committee assigned *808 the complaint to a reviewing subcommittee.”
D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 188 A.3d 727 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 12× “*738 Applying the Napoletano factors to the present case, it appears that the plaintiffs are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the grievance process established under General Statutes § 51-90g and the parallel rules of practice.”
Kucej v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 686 A.2d 110 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 10× “7 The local panel forwarded its findings to the defendant as required by Practice Book § 27F (g) and General Statutes § 51-90f. 8 The defendant, in accordance with *455 Practice Book § 27J (a) and General Statutes § 51-90g (a), 9 referred the case to a reviewing committee…”
Lewis v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 669 A.2d 1202 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 6× “Both General Statutes § 51-90g (a) and Practice Book § 27J (a) require that a reviewing committee consist of at least three members of the statewide grievance committee.”
Field v. Kearns, 682 A.2d 148 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Following receipt of the grievance panel’s recommendation, the committee has the power to assign the case to a reviewing committee, to compel testimony and the production of evidence by use of its subpoena power, to hold hearings at which the complainant and respondent shall…”
Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Rozbicki, 595 A.2d 819 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “1 On June 10, 1988, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the presentment based upon the failure of the subcommittee of the grievance committee to render a decision within ninety days of the probable cause determination as required by General Statutes § 51-90g (c).”
Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Whitney, 633 A.2d 296 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 51-90g provides in relevant part: “(a) The statewide grievance committee may designate at least three members of the committee, including at least one-third who are not attorneys, to serve as a reviewing subcommittee for each determination made by a panel on…”
Burton v. Mottolese, 835 A.2d 998 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “These rules exist within the broader framework of the relationship between attorneys and the judiciary.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-90g(a): 2 cases
D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 188 A.3d 727 (Conn. 2018).
“*738 Applying the Napoletano factors to the present case, it appears that the plaintiffs are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the grievance process established under General Statutes § 51-90g and the parallel rules of practice.”
Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Rozbicki, 558 A.2d 986 (Conn. 1989).
“The grievance committee appointed a subcommittee to review the complaint, as permitted by General Statutes § 51-90g (a). 2 Although § 51-90g (c) required the subcommittee to conclude any hearings and render its proposed decision on the complaint within ninety days of the date…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-90g(b): 1 case
D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 188 A.3d 727 (Conn. 2018).
“*738 Applying the Napoletano factors to the present case, it appears that the plaintiffs are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the grievance process established under General Statutes § 51-90g and the parallel rules of practice.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-90g(f): 1 case
D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 188 A.3d 727 (Conn. 2018).
“*738 Applying the Napoletano factors to the present case, it appears that the plaintiffs are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the grievance process established under General Statutes § 51-90g and the parallel rules of practice.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.