150 Conn.App. 472
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Attorney Zbigniew S. Rozbicki was executor of Kathleen Gisselbrecht’s estate; disputes arose after he paid life insurance proceeds to two named beneficiaries but also withdrew $20,000 he claimed was owed to him and sought fees from the estate.
- Multiple grievance complaints were filed (Roszas, Gisselbrecht, Falzarano). A reviewing committee dismissed Roszas’s complaint; a later consolidated proceeding found Rozbicki violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and directed a presentment.
- Chief Disciplinary Counsel brought a presentment in Superior Court; after hearings the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Rozbicki violated various rules (conflict of interest, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, frivolous litigation, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and suspended him for two years.
- Rozbicki moved for summary judgment asserting preclusion by the earlier Roszas dismissal; the court denied the motion, finding no identity/privity and later excluded re-litigation attempts at trial absent a concrete offer of new proof.
- Rozbicki appealed, raising claims that the grievance committee failed to exhaust administrative remedies/ plaintiff lacked standing, preclusion should have been relitigated, denial of discovery violated due process, the judge trial referee lacked authority, and the two-year suspension was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / standing (exhaustion) | Grievance process complied with current rules; reviewing committee decision was final and plaintiff properly brought presentment | Grievance committee failed to issue a final decision (did not review proposed decision), so plaintiff lacked standing and court lacked jurisdiction | Court affirmed jurisdiction: under post-1997 rules the reviewing committee’s decision was final absent a review request; plaintiff had standing |
| Preclusion (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Prior dismissal did not create identity or privity sufficient to bar presentment | Roszas dismissal barred later complaints as duplicative; court must compare complaints and should have admitted Roszas complaint evidence | Court upheld denial of re-litigation: preclusion does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction; defendant offered no new evidence or concrete offer of proof to warrant relitigation |
| Discovery / due process | Disciplinary proceeding allows reasonable discovery; plaintiff did not oppose appropriate discovery | Court (per plaintiff’s protective order position) improperly denied all discovery, violating due process | Court did not deny all discovery; it denied blanket protection and required specificity and need; defendant permitted discovery within court’s limits, so no due process violation |
| Authority of judge trial referee to preside | Presentment must be before a judge (implied challenge to referee’s authority) | Judge trial referee lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate presentment, making judgment void | Court affirmed: under § 52-434a(a) judge trial referees have same powers and jurisdiction as referring judges; defendant’s late challenge waived |
| Sanction (two-year suspension) | Suspension unnecessary because conduct lacked moral turpitude or dishonesty | Suspension excessive; no dishonesty or moral turpitude shown | Court affirmed suspension: considered ABA sanction factors and aggravating history (prior discipline, pattern, selfish motive, lack of remorse) and found two-year suspension within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 234 Conn. 539 (Conn. 1995) (Superior Court’s inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and adopt professional rules)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232 (Conn. 1989) (disciplinary proceedings are sui generis and courts retain broad power to discipline attorneys)
- Ex Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1883) (disciplinary proceedings aim to preserve courts from unfit practitioners)
- Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601 (Conn. App. 2007) (clearly erroneous standard preferred in attorney grievance appeals)
- Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Burton, 88 Conn. App. 523 (Conn. App. 2005) (disciplinary scheme purposes and sanctioning standards)
- Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (factors to consider when imposing sanctions)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Shluger, 230 Conn. 668 (Conn. 1994) (trial court’s discretion in choosing sanctions for attorney misconduct)