Bustamante v. Ramos-Perez
Allegedly Attorney Did Not Return Phone Calls Before Client's Trial
Administrative Law | Legal Profession
- Statewide Grievance Committee
- Mar 08 2013 (Date Decided)
- Woviotis, Esq., Slossberg, Esq., and Myers
An attorney who allegedly does not return a client's calls for information about the client's trial, before the trial, may not communicate adequately, in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The complainant, Carradine Bustamante, hired the respondent attorney, Pedro Ramos-Perez of Hartford, to help the complainant in connection with custody. Allegedly, the complainant called the respondent, prior to trial, to request information about the trial, and the respondent did not return the complainant's calls. The respondent appeared at the trial and represented the complainant. The complainant filed a grievance complaint, and the respondent did not file an answer. The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent did not communicate adequately, in violation of Rule 1.4, and failed to file an answer to the grievance complaint, in violation of Rule 8.1(2) and Practice Book §2-32(a)(1). The complainant failed to prove that the respondent attorney was not diligent, in violation of Rule 1.1. The Statewide Grievance Committee reprimanded the respondent attorney.