Bowler v. Dakin
An attorney who lacks enough funds in his IOLTA account violates Rule 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In December 2011, the respondent attorney's IOLTA account lacked sufficient funds to pay a check in the amount of $750. The bank contacted the Statewide Grievance Committee, which requested an explanation from the respondent attorney, Christopher Dakin of Salisbury, Conn. Attorney Dakin did not immediately respond, within 10 days, and the Statewide Grievance Committee wrote again. Dakin responded, and the Statewide Grievance Committee twice requested additional information. Statewide Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary complaint. Allegedly, Dakin did not provide the additional information, he did not file an answer to the grievance complaint and he did not appear at a hearing. The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent attorney lacked enough funds in his IOLTA account, in violation of Rules 1.15(b) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that he did not file an answer to the grievance complaint, in violation of Practice Book §§2-27(a) and 2-32(a)(1). The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent's presentment to Superior Court for discipline.