153 Conn.App. 186
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petitioner Jacek I. Smigelski, a former Connecticut lawyer, was disciplined after a presentment alleging unreasonable fee (Rule 1.5) and improper withholding/distribution of estate funds (Rule 1.15) in connection with sale of estate real property. The Superior Court suspended him (total 15 months) and this was affirmed on appeal.
- Fee dispute: Smigelski charged a contingent/one‑third fee based on a comparative market analysis valuing the property at $257,000, resulting in fees of $66,838.32 taken from closing proceeds; the estate actually received net proceeds of about $155,300. Probate court later awarded a much smaller fee and ordered return of funds.
- A HUD‑1 settlement statement (provided to Smigelski during grievance proceedings) listed an appraisal fee payable to L.R. Evjen Appraisal Services. That appraisal (dated Sept. 29, 2006) valued the property at $254,000 but was not introduced at the presentment trial.
- Smigelski filed a petition for a new trial claiming (1) the Sept. 29, 2006 appraisal was newly discovered evidence that would have shown his fee was reasonable; (2) fraud on the court because an appraised $170,000 figure (testimony later stricken) was not corrected; and (3) due process/Brady violation because disciplinary counsel failed to disclose the Evjen appraisal.
- The respondent (chief disciplinary counsel) moved for summary judgment arguing the appraisal was not newly discovered (Smigelski had HUD‑1 notice), there was no fraud on the court, and Brady (criminal evidence‑suppression doctrine) does not apply; the trial court granted summary judgment for respondent and the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence (§52‑270) | The Sept. 29, 2006 appraisal was new and would likely change result by corroborating the high market value used to compute Smigelski’s fee. | Smigelski had constructive/actual notice of the appraisal via the HUD‑1 sent with the grievance; he failed to exercise due diligence to obtain it before trial. | Court: appraisal not newly discovered as a matter of law; Smigelski could have discovered it with due diligence; summary judgment for respondent affirmed. |
| Fraud on the court | Court was misled by testimony (reference to $170,000) and by nondisclosure of the $254,000 appraisal; judgment procured by fraud. | The $170,000 remark was stricken from the record; respondent did not possess the Evjen appraisal and did not knowingly mislead the court. | Court: no evidence of fraud on the court; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Due process / Brady claim | Respondent suppressed materially exculpatory evidence (Evjen appraisal) and failed to correct false testimony, violating Brady and Smigelski’s right to a fair hearing. | Brady applies to criminal prosecutions only; moreover, Smigelski had HUD‑1 notice of the appraisal and thus could have obtained it with diligence. | Court: Brady not applicable to disciplinary proceeding; even under Brady principles, no suppression because Smigelski knew or should have known of the appraisal; claim fails. |
| Vacatur / supervisory relief of prior judgments | If new trial ordered, prior civil and disciplinary judgments should be vacated. | No basis for new trial, so no basis to vacate earlier judgments. | Court: denied—no new trial entitlement so vacatur not warranted; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447 (2010) (Asherman standard for newly discovered evidence and requirement that new evidence likely produce different result)
- Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (1987) (standard for new‑trial motions based on newly discovered evidence)
- Varley v. Varley, 180 Conn. 1 (1980) (four‑part requirements for relief from judgment secured by fraud)
- Duart v. Dept. of Correction, 303 Conn. 479 (2012) (modification of Varley fourth prong to "reasonable probability" that a new trial would change result)
- Gonzalez v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 145 Conn. App. 458 (2013) (Brady doctrine limited to criminal prosecutions; not applicable in civil enforcement proceedings)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, 124 Conn. App. 81 (2010) (prior appellate decision affirming the presentment judgment against Smigelski)