Disciplinary Counsel v. Sporn
157 A.3d 108
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Judith B. Sporn (respondent), an experienced attorney who handled immigration matters since 1982, faced three grievance actions arising from her representation of: Line Christoffersen (Denmark citizen seeking a marriage-based green card), and Valent Kolami and Adrian Emin (Albanian nationals appealing BIA asylum denials).
- Common ethical failures found by the trial court: lack of written fee agreements, failure to maintain client trust/IOLTA accounts, inadequate communication, incompetence and lack of diligence, and mishandling of client funds in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice Book § 2-27.
- Key facts: Sporn did not begin Christoffersen’s marriage-based application and later filed an I-360 (VAWA) petition (approved) without a new fee agreement; Christoffersen did not pursue adjustment of status and never obtained a green card.
- For Kolami and Emin, Sporn failed to timely file or monitor BIA appeals (one brief returned for wrong service; appeals dismissed in 2004), repeatedly failed to inform clients, and later filed multiple stays of removal; both were detained by ICE years later (Kolami 18 months, Emin 16 months).
- The trial court found violations of RPC rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(b), 1.15(b),(d),(i) and Practice Book § 2-27 and, after applying ABA sanctioning factors, imposed a two-year suspension. Sporn appealed, challenging exclusion of immigration-expert testimony and the length of the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Sporn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting motion in limine to exclude proposed expert testimony on immigration practice | Expert testimony was unnecessary because the court could evaluate ethical violations without specialized immigration-law evidence | Expert testimony was necessary to show standard of care in immigration practice, causation of harm, and to rebut prior expert opinion | Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; immigration expertise not required to decide competence, diligence, communication, or fee/accounting violations; any error would be harmless |
| Whether expert testimony would show lack of client harm (causation) sufficient to defeat sanctions | Harm to clients is established and supports sanction; expert testimony would not change ethical violations | Testimony would prove clients either suffered no harm or would have suffered same harm regardless, undermining sanctions | Court found some harm findings (re: Kolami/Emin detention) speculative but held exclusion harmless because other sanctioning factors supported suspension |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings of client harm were clearly erroneous | Harm (lost opportunity for Christoffersen; detention and loss for Kolami/Emin) justified sanction | Some findings (that detention/lengths resulted from Sporn’s misconduct) were speculative and lacked record support | Partly agreed: some harm findings unsupported (Kolami/Emin causation speculative) but overall sanction sustained because other findings and aggravating factors were well supported |
| Whether two-year suspension was excessive given record and mitigating factors | Suspension appropriate given repeated, serious violations and prior discipline; petitioner sought five years | Sporn sought non-suspension sanctions (education, supervision, reprimand), arguing suspension would unduly harm her practice and clients | Affirmed: two-year suspension not an abuse of discretion—respondent’s repeated misconduct, lack of remorse, vulnerability of clients, prior discipline, and failure to safeguard client funds justified suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (2014) (standards for admitting expert testimony)
- Glaser v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, 88 Conn. App. 615 (2005) (review standard for exclusion of expert testimony and harmless-error principle)
- Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1 (2003) (use of ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in disciplinary proceedings)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer, 247 Conn. 762 (1999) (appellate standard for review of disciplinary sanctions)
- Commissioner of Transportation v. Towpath Associates, 255 Conn. 529 (2001) (rejecting findings based on speculation)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Shluger, 230 Conn. 668 (1994) (pattern of misconduct supports suspension)