An attorney who makes a statement that lacks a sufficient basis in fact violates Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney, Paul Garlasco, was admitted to the bar of the State of Connecticut in May 1985 and has one prior reprimand. A local grievance panel found probable cause that the respondent attorney violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.1 provides, "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." The respondent attorney, who was represented by Raymond Plouffe, waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and wrote, "I admit that I failed to exercise proper judgment as an attorney during the course of legal proceedings with the Complainant and that in asserting my position, I made some statements which at the time made, did not have a sufficient basis in fact and that this conduct violated Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct." The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent to take a continuing legal education course in legal ethics.