Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki, 167 A.3d 351

Background

Rozbicki, an attorney and former executor in contested probate litigation, repeatedly accused two Superior Court judges (Roche and Danaher) of bias, prejudice, partiality, and other misconduct in motions, memoranda and oral arguments arising from estate litigation.
Opposing counsel filed a grievance. A Litchfield panel found probable cause; the Statewide Grievance Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Rozbicki made improper, baseless accusations and directed Chief Disciplinary Counsel to file a presentment.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment alleging violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 8.2(a), and 8.4(4), and relied in part on Rozbicki’s prior disciplinary history.
The Superior Court (trial de novo) found Rozbicki violated rules 3.1, 8.2(a), and 8.4(4) by clear and convincing evidence, treating the conduct as part of a pattern and considering prior discipline as aggravating.
The court suspended Rozbicki from the practice of law for four years. Rozbicki appealed, raising due process, preclusion (res judicata/collateral estoppel), sufficiency of proof, and excessiveness of sanction claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Due process / notice of reliance on prior discipline	Presentment is a trial de novo; prior discipline was expressly referenced by the Statewide Grievance Committee and is admissible for sanctioning	Trial court admitted extrinsic evidence of prior misconduct without adequate notice, depriving him of due process	Affirmed: No Golding-level due process violation; Statewide Committee’s decision and references provided ample notice that prior discipline could be considered
2. Res judicata / collateral estoppel	A judge’s choice not to act does not preclude disciplinary proceedings by the grievance system	Silence by Judges Roche and Danaher under Rule 2.15 absolved him of misconduct; doctrines bar presentment	Affirmed: Preclusion doctrines do not apply because the judges did not decide the disciplinary issue and no prior adjudication on the merits occurred
3. Sufficiency of evidence to prove Rule violations	Evidence (pleadings, motions, testimony) shows repeated baseless attacks on judges; clear and convincing standard met	His filings were reasonable, in good faith, and sometimes provoked by judges’ conduct; alleged abuse/discord justified disqualification motions	Affirmed: Trial court’s factual findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence for violations of Rules 3.1, 8.2(a), and 8.4(4)
4. Appropriateness of four-year suspension	ABA standards considered; aggravating factors (prior discipline, pattern, multiple offenses, lack of remorse) support suspension	Sanction excessive; prior discipline evidence unsworn/erroneous; mitigating factors (career length, others) not adequately weighed	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; properly applied ABA standards and identified aggravating/mitigating factors

Key Cases Cited

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Connecticut 1989) (standard for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)
Blumberg Assocs. Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Conn., 311 Conn. 123 (Connecticut 2014) (appellate review limited to issues raised at trial)
Ansell v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 87 Conn. App. 376 (Conn. App. 2005) (judge’s inaction does not prevent grievance committee investigation)
Shelton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 277 Conn. 99 (Connecticut 2006) (disciplinary findings require clear and convincing evidence)
Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 277 Conn. 218 (Connecticut 2006) (making unsubstantiated accusations about a judge violates Rule 8.2(a) and 8.4(4))
Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1 (Connecticut 2003) (pattern of baseless accusations can violate professional conduct rules)
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Egbarin, 61 Conn. App. 445 (Conn. App. 2001) (trial court discretion and review in attorney grievance proceedings)