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. ******************************************************

JOSEPH J. NOTOPOULOS v. STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE (SC 17341)
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Zarella, Js. Argued October 25, 2005--officially released February 14, 2006

Joseph J. Notopoulos, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). Christopher L. Slack, assistant bar counsel, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

SULLIVAN, C. J. The plaintiff, Joseph J. Notopoulos, appeals following our grant of certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, the statewide grievance committee (committee).1 The committee had reprimanded the plaintiff after he wrote a letter accusing a Probate Court judge of, inter alia, extorting money. The plaintiff appealed from the reprimand to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal in part and sustained the appeal in part. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the Appellate Court, in affirming the trial court's judgment, improperly concluded that the committee reasonably could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff had violated rules 8.2 (a)2 and 8.4 (4)3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He further claims that the committee's actions violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights under the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history. ``The plaintiff, an attorney, filed an application with the Probate Court for the district of West Hartford seeking appointment as the conservator of his mother's estate and person. The court, Berman, J., appointed the plaintiff as conservator of his mother's estate, Denny Fuller as conservator of her person and Carolyn Levine to investigate her care and financial assets. The plaintiff had many disagreements with Judge Berman, including a disagreement regarding the fees of Levine and Fuller and one regarding a do not resuscitate order issued to Fuller. On May 29, 1999, the plaintiff's mother died, and the plaintiff and his brother were appointed coexecutors of her estate. Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed that he did not receive timely notice of the probate decree closing his mother's estate. The plaintiff wrote a letter to Renee Bradley, a member of the court staff, and sent copies of this letter to his brother and his mother's physician.4 ``Bradley forwarded this letter to Judge Berman, who then filed a complaint with the committee, claiming that the plaintiff `attacked [him] and [his] court in a fashion that violates the spirit and letter of the Rules of Professional Conduct.' The matter was referred to the grievance panel for the Hartford-New Britain judicial district, which found probable cause that the plaintiff violated rules 3.5, 8.2 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. At a hearing conducted by a reviewing committee, the plaintiff testified and presented evidence, but Judge Berman did not attend, and the committee did not present any additional evidence or call any witnesses. On February 22, 2002, the reviewing committee issued a decision reprimanding the plaintiff, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that he violated rules 3.5 (3), 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional

Conduct. On April 18, 2002, this decision was affirmed by the entire committee. ``On May 6, 2002, the plaintiff appealed from the committee's decision to the Superior Court. In its memorandum of decision dated September 24, 2003, the court sustained the plaintiff's appeal as to rule 3.5 (3), but dismissed his appeal as to rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4).'' Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 85 Conn. App. 425, 427

Download Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee.pdf

Connecticut Law