320 Conn. 759
Conn.2016Background
- Josephine Smalls Miller, a Connecticut attorney and solo practitioner, was ordered to show cause before the Appellate Court for repeated failures to meet appellate deadlines, comply with Practice Book filing requirements, and for filing a frivolous appeal (cases: Addo, Willis, Cimmino, Coble).
- In Addo the Appellate Clerk rejected Miller’s filings for lacking required certifications; she received two written notices but did not cure until after the show‑cause order and then failed to timely submit confirmation receipts.
- In Cimmino Miller missed multiple extended deadlines for the brief and appendix, sought a third extension after the due date, and the court dismissed the appeal after an order nisi; she had earlier received two extensions.
- In Willis the appeal was dismissed after Miller failed to respond to an order nisi requiring transcript/certification while she was out of the country and admitted she did not arrange coverage; opposing counsel alleged additional lapses (missed hearing, false certification).
- In Coble the trial court found the refiling under the accidental‑failure statute unwarranted and made a §52‑226a special finding that the refiling was meritless; the Appellate Court dismissed Miller’s appeal as frivolous and recommended full‑court consideration of sanctions.
- The Appellate Court suspended Miller from practicing before it for six months (except Addo until she failed to cure), required a reinstatement motion with proof of education and practice changes, dismissed or denied relief in the underlying appeals, and referred the matters to Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Appellate Court abuse its discretion by suspending Miller for six months? | Miller: suspension was excessive and unsupported; her conduct didn’t violate Rule 8.4 exclusively. | Appellate Court: repeated noncompliance and a frivolous appeal justified sanctions to protect clients and court efficiency. | No abuse of discretion; six‑month suspension upheld. |
| Are the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 8.4) the exclusive basis for sanctioning attorneys? | Miller: only violations of Rule 8.4 permit discipline. | Court: inherent, statutory, and court‑rule authority permit sanctions for procedural violations. | Rejected Miller’s exclusivity claim; court may sanction under inherent power/statute/rules. |
| Was dismissal of or sanctions related to the Coble appeal improper as a frivolous appeal? | Miller: reasonable minds could differ; appeal not frivolous. | Defendant: trial court found refiling meritless and not in good faith; Appellate Court relied on that finding. | Appellate Court properly dismissed appeal as frivolous; Miller didn’t challenge the trial court’s merits finding. |
| Was the referral to Chief Disciplinary Counsel improper or duplicative? | Miller: referral vague and risks duplicative sanctions without stating specific ethics violations. | Appellate Court: referral appropriate to determine if Appellate Court conduct reflects broader pattern. | Referral permissible; court has obligation to refer patterns of misconduct for further review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergeron v. Mackler, 225 Conn. 391 (court authority to regulate attorney conduct)
- Gionfrido v. Wharf Realty, Inc., 193 Conn. 28 (inherent power to discipline and dismiss for noncompliance)
- Srager v. Koenig, 42 Conn. App. 617 (six‑month suspension for repeated noncompliance)
- Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296 (court discretion in imposing sanctions)
- Thalheim v. Greenwich, 256 Conn. 628 (sanctions for procedural violations; remedial requirements)
- In re Mongillo, 190 Conn. 686 (caseflow management and enforcing standards)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232 (disciplinary proceedings sui generis; court supervisory power)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Presnick, 215 Conn. 162 (clear and convincing standard in discipline)
- CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375 (dismissal for failure to comply with practice rules)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (courts’ authority to refer matters for grievance investigation)
- Venezia v. Kennedy, 165 Conn. 183 (dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 (standard of review on motion to open)
- Worth v. Commissioner of Transportation, 135 Conn. App. 506 (requirements for accidental‑failure statute relief)