Thursday, October 30, 2008

Reprimand Affirmed

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the reprimand of an attorney who was defending a claim brought by a mail carrier who had suffered a dog bite. The mail carrier had sued the dog owners, who retained the lawyer. The lawyer sought medical records and scheduled the deposition of the medical services provider. The disciplinary charges had alleged that the lawyer made a false statement to a tribunal about the alleged failure of the deponent to attend. The court here rejected claims that the evidence failed to establish a false statement to a tribunal and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reprimand Affirmed:


The problem with Rule 8.4(4) has always been that it is too broad and therefore subject to a vagueness challenge even though this particular attorney doesn’t appear to have raised that claim. This case is interesting because the Court specifically acknowledges that the “Connecticut courts have yet to fashion a precise interpretation of rule 8.4(4)” and then appears, through note 11, to be attempting to fill in the gaps by cataloguing those occasions where Rule 8.4(4) has been applied in the past – both in and outside of Connecticut. Future courts will now be able to point this case as guidance and thereby avoid a vagueness challenge.


Posted by: FixedWing | Oct 30, 2008 1:50:02 PM

Post a comment