Korlou v. Sarra
The Statewide Grievance Committee can find that an attorney's affidavit is incorrect, because the attorney apparently admitted in the affidavit that he represented both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transaction, and the record indicated that the attorney represented the buyer and the lender. A local grievance panel found probable cause that the respondent attorney violated Rule 1.7(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney, Aaron Sarra of Plainville, was admitted to the bar of the State of Connecticut in 2001 and has no prior disciplinary history. The respondent, who was represented by Attorney Anthony Nuzzo, waived his right to a full evidentiary hearing and wrote in an affidavit, "While I deny some or all of the material allegations of the complaint, I admit that there is sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence that I represented the Complainant, the buyer in a real estate transaction, and the seller, and that I thereby violated Rule 1.7(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct." The Statewide Grievance Committee observed that the record indicated that the respondent attorney represented the buyer and the lender in a real estate transaction, as opposed to the buyer and the seller. Rule 1.7(a) provides, "A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent attorney to take a continuing legal education course in legal ethics or professional responsibility within nine months.