Brow v. Gudis
An attorney who allegedly refuses to take his seat during a municipal board meeting when informed that the attorney is out of order can engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Conduct. A local grievance panel found probable cause that the respondent attorney, who represented the union at a meeting of a municipal board of police commissioners, violated Rules 3.5(4), 3.4(3) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The complainant, Frederick Brow, alleged that the respondent attorney, Richard Gudis of Old Saybrook, was disruptive, argumentative and, when informed that he was out of order, refused to take his seat, in violation of Rule 8.4(4). Rule 8.4(4) provides, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Gudis has no prior disciplinary history. The respondent, who was represented by Attorney John Gulash, waived his right to a full evidentiary hearing and wrote, "While I deny some or all of the material allegations of the complaint, I acknowledge that there is sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence that my conduct violated Rule 8.4(4)." The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent attorney to take a continuing legal education course in legal ethics.