157 Conn.App. 613
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Rozbicki, an attorney, was the subject of a grievance based on his conduct as executor of an estate and related litigation; the Litchfield Grievance Panel found probable cause and referred the matter for review.
- A reviewing committee held an evidentiary hearing (plaintiff had counsel, testified, and filed a posthearing brief) and, in a written decision, found by clear and convincing evidence a violation of Rule 3.1 and directed disciplinary counsel to file a presentment.
- Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment in Superior Court; Rozbicki appealed the reviewing committee’s decision to the Superior Court challenging the directive to file a presentment.
- The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the committee’s order directing presentment was interlocutory and not a final appealable judgment.
- The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee, and Rozbicki appealed to the Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding Miniter controls, and additionally noted inadequacies in the record regarding whether Rozbicki sought review by the Statewide Grievance Committee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court has subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a reviewing committee’s order directing disciplinary counsel to file a presentment | Rozbicki appealed the reviewing committee’s directive (did not meaningfully contest Miniter in briefing) | The order directing presentment is interlocutory, not a final judgment, so Superior Court lacks jurisdiction (per Miniter) | Court held no jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed under Miniter (order is interlocutory) |
| Whether Rozbicki provided an adequate record / timely requested review by the Statewide Grievance Committee | Rozbicki alleged committee decision dates but did not include supporting documents in the appendix | Appellant bears duty to provide an adequate record; no evidence of a request for committee review in the record | Court noted the record was inadequate and plaintiff failed to show he sought review; this reinforced dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 122 Conn. App. 410, 998 A.2d 268 (2010) (an order directing presentment is interlocutory and not immediately appealable to Superior Court)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (test for appealability of interlocutory orders)
- State v. Germain, 142 Conn. App. 805, 65 A.3d 536 (2013) (appellant’s duty to provide an adequate record for appellate review)