Effective January 1, 2004, new rules await the attorney-respondent in defending a complaint of misconduct. Two significant changes are the creation of the disciplinary counsel and the admission of prior attorney misconduct. Other changes effecting procedure will hopefully expedite the process by focusing on contested matters and attorneys with a history of misconduct.

P. B. 2-34A was adopted in 2004 to create an office of disciplinary counsel. The primary responsibility of the disciplinary counsel will be to prosecute complaints against lawyers. Prior to the amendment, the typical complainant was a layperson who would submit documents to the grievance panel and might appear to testify at a reviewing committee hearing. The respondent lawyer would often be represented by legal counsel, particularly at the hearing stage of a grievance investigation. Now the disciplinary counsel may appear, if requested, to prosecute a complaint during the proceedings before the grievance panel. P.B. 2-29. The disciplinary counsel will be present at all hearings before the statewide grievance committee. P.B. 2-34A. As a result, attorney-respondents will face an informed and knowledgeable advocate.

The disciplinary counsel is further authorized to discuss and negotiate with the attorney-respondent the issue of sanctions. P. B. 2-82. Upon a finding of probable cause, the respondent may conditionally admit misconduct to the disciplinary counsel and negotiate the sanction. Prior to the rule, the respondent was required to endure a lengthy grievance process. It was not advisable for the lawyer to concede misconduct, even if it was not at issue. This new rule will dramatically change the grievance process and should make the overall system more efficient.

Conversely, a respondent may no longer avoid a grievance by resigning. As of January 1, 2004, the resignation-waiver provision in 2-52 was revoked. Previously, a resignation, with a waiver of the privilege of reapplying for admission, would conclude the grievance matter any time during the process. Now, a resignation is not effective until such time as the statewide grievance committee completes its investigation of allegations of misconduct. The resignation is no longer a shield for the Connecticut practitioner. This is also significant for attorneys admitted in multiple jurisdictions because a finding of misconduct may be subject to reciprocal discipline in those out-of-state jurisdictions.

P.B. 2-47 (d) is a new rule which adopts a three-strikes, and your presented rule. Any party disciplined three times within a five-year period, beginning with the enactment of this rule on January 1, 2003, shall be presented to the court. While the presentment court will not consider the merits of the prior disciplines, it may now look at a history of disciplinary sanctions whereas previously the court was limited to the matter before it.

Finally, P.B. 2-29 has been amended to permit local grievance panels to dismiss grievance complaints (as discussed in this issue). Together, these changes are a significant alteration to the grievance process.

Practice Note : Pro Hac Vice Applications

An application for pro hac vice under P. B. 2-16 must now include statements that the pro hac vice applicant designates the chief clerk as an agent for service of process; has registered with the statewide grievance counsel (the registration must include a period of two years after completion of the matter); and a list all pro hac vice applications in this state.