211 Conn.App. 119
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff Anthony C. Carter filed two grievance complaints in 2017 against attorney Richard J. Rubino; statewide bar counsel Michael P. Bowler reviewed and dismissed both, sending letters stating the complaints did not allege facts that, if true, would violate applicable rules of attorney conduct.
- Carter sued Bowler alleging deprivation of due process under the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions based on those dismissals.
- Bowler moved to dismiss under Practice Book §10-30, asserting absolute immunity (and alternatively sovereign immunity) as bar to Carter’s claims.
- The trial court granted Bowler’s motion to dismiss on the ground of absolute immunity; Carter appealed.
- The Appellate Court examined whether the statewide bar counsel’s review and dismissal of grievances is a quasi-judicial function entitled to absolute immunity under Connecticut (and federal) law.
- The court affirmed: Bowler acted pursuant to statutory authority and Practice Book rules, performing quasi-judicial functions (investigation, factfinding, discretion to dismiss or refer, potential effect on license), so absolute immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowler is entitled to absolute immunity for dismissing grievances | Carter: dismissal deprived him of due process; Bowler’s acts are not protected | Bowler: acted in quasi-judicial capacity under statutory authority and Practice Book; absolute immunity bars suit | Affirmed: actions were quasi-judicial and absolutely immune |
| Whether sovereign immunity barred state constitutional claim (alternative) | Carter: state constitutional claim should survive | Bowler: sovereign immunity applies | Not decided on merits — court affirmed on absolute immunity and did not reach sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (discusses factors for identifying quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (public policy and factors supporting absolute immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (absolute immunity not defeated by allegations of bad faith or malice)
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423 (disciplinary actions have an essentially judicial nature)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (application of absolute immunity to quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510 (Office of statewide bar counsel acts as arm of the court)
- Cohen v. King, 189 Conn. App. 85 (grievance proceedings are quasi-judicial and shielded by absolute immunity)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (litigation privilege/absolute immunity principles)
- Field v. Kearns, 43 Conn. App. 265 (bar grievance proceedings are quasi-judicial)