Thе plaintiff, Nancy Burton, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from the reprimand issued to her by the defendant, the statewide grievance committee (committee). The cоmmittee had affirmed the decision of its reviewing committee, reprimanding the plaintiff for a violation of rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the plaintiffs appeal. The grievance giving rise to the reprimand at issue arose from the plaintiffs behavior during a previous administrative appeal. See Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee,
After rendering his memorandum of decision dismissing that appеal, Judge McWeeny referred the plaintiff to the committee for investigation.
The statewide grievance cоmmittee, in response to the plaintiffs request for review, affirmed the decision
The plaintiff then filed the present appeal with this court, claiming that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that she had violated rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and (2) improperly denied her motion for rear-gument. We do not agree. Because both of the plaintiffs сlaims on appeal center on her repeated contention that she did comply with Practice Book § 1-23, we will address the claims jointly.
“At the outset, we note that in reviewing a decision of the stаtewide grievance committee to issue a reprimand, neither the trial court nor this court takes on the function of a fact finder. Rather, our role is limited to reviewing the record to determine if the fаcts as found are supported by the evidence contained within the record and whether the conclusions that follow are legally and logically correct. . . . Additionally, in a grievance proсeeding, the standard of proof applicable in determining whether an attorney has violated the [Rules] of Professional [Conduct] is clear- and convincing evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Somers v. Statewide Grievance Committee,
In its memorandum of decision, the court stated: “Practice Book § 1-23 establishes the requirements for a motion for disqualification of a judicial authority. These
“Finally ... a charge that a judge is not impartial implicates not only the fundamental concept of a fair trial, but the very integrity of the trial court. Wendt v. Wendt,
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the court’s judgment should be affirmed. Because the quoted portion of the court’s memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present apрeal, we adopt it as the proper statement
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not. bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may neverthelеss so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.”
On June 4, 1998, file court issued a notice, with Judge McWeeny’s name on it, to the plaintiff stating that “oral argument in thе above captioned case is scheduled for July 30,1998, at 10:00AM in Courtroom A of 100 Washington Street in Hartford.”
Burton v. Moraghan, United States District Court, Docket No. 3:98 CV 1490 (AHN) (D. Conn.).
It is noteworthy that in the last paragraph of each of the five counts, the complaint states that “[defendant McWeeny is excluded from this Count.”
The plaintiff had filed a previous motion to disqualify Judge McWeeny in February, 1998. That motion was denied by Judge McWeeny on April 13, 1998, because the plaintiff did not comply with Practice Book § 1-23 concerning motions for judicial disqualification.
Although Judge McWeeny referred the plaintiff for investigation of issues of compliance with Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4), the only rule violation that is relevant to the present appeal is that of rule 3.1.
Practice Book § 1-23 provides: “A motion to disqualify a judicial authority shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the facts relied upon to show the grounds for disqualification and a certificate of the counsel of record that the motion is made in good faith. The motion shall be filed no less than ten days before the time the case is called for trial or hearing, unless good cause is shown for failure to file within such time.”
Practice Boole § 2-38 (a) provides in relevant part: “A respondent may appeal to the superior court a decision by the statewide grievance committee or a reviewing committee reprimanding the respondent . . . .”