Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MARK VILLENEUVE (AC 31841)
Lavine, Alvord and Borden, Js. Argued December 1, 2010--officially released February 22, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Aurigemma, J.) Corey J. Brinson, with whom, on the brief, was Mark

Villeneuve, pro se, for the appellant (defendant). Patricia A. King, with whom was Mark A. Dubois, chief disciplinary counsel, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

ALVORD, J. The defendant, Mark Villeneuve, appeals from the judgment of the trial court suspending his license to practice law. On appeal, he claims that, inter alia, (1) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the court improperly suspended his license prior to ruling upon his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (3) the court and the statewide grievance committee (grievance committee) violated his due process rights because (a) the grievance complaint was not executed under ``penalties of false statement,'' thus violating Practice Book

Download Disciplinary Counsel v. Villeneuve.pdf

Connecticut Law