Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zbigniew S. Rozbicki (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTION

The defendant/respondent moves that the court transfer the above entitled complaint for presentment to either the Judicial District of New Haven or at Waterbury for the following reasons:

1. The respondent has been practicing law in the Judicial District of Litchfield with his primary office in Torrington for more than forty years.   The respondent's practice is primarily a trial practice and is concentrated in the Judicial District of Litchfield.   The respondent's client base is also composed of Litchfield County residents.

2. The respondent, in the pursuit of his clients' interests, regularly appears with his clients before the judges assigned to the Judicial District of Litchfield in his trial practice.

3. The adjudication of the above entitled in said court where the respondent, his opponents, and his clients appear on a regular basis, is reasonably calculated to be prejudicial and embarrassing to both the respondent and his clients and will affect the respondent's ability to represent his clients completely and without the infusion of bias or prejudice.

4. The respondent has no pending business in the Judicial District of New Haven at Waterbury and a transfer of the case to said District will serve the respondent's clients, justice and avoid the fear of bias and prejudice which a trial of the presentment in the same courthouse is being adjudicated.

The respondent relies on Section 12–1 C.P.B. which authorizes the transfer of an action from a judicial district court location to any other judicial district court location by order of the judicial authority.   The holding found in Maco v. Statewide Grievance Committee, in 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 199, 1995 WL 41394 (1995), and Section 51–347b C.G.S. which respondent claims would allow for the requested transfer in order to promote the proper administration of justice.   The reasons articulated in the respondent's motion are intended to promote the proper administration of justice, and avoid prejudice to the respondent's clients and to the respondent.

Connecticut Law holds that discipline matters are of a “quasi-criminal” in nature.  Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1, 26 (2003).   Unlike criminal prosecutions, the respondent is not entitled to a jury trial, his presentment hearing will be heard by a judge.   The respondent has failed to demonstrate that there has been any significant press coverage regarding his presentment.   In his oral argument at the short calendar he cites one article by a local newspaper regarding his presentment but he has failed to demonstrate how this minimal press coverage would have any prejudicial effect on the trier of fact or the administration of justice.   In fact, the court has assigned the presentment to a judge who has had minimal contact with the respondent and who has served most of his judicial career in the Waterbury Judicial District.   The respondent has expressed concerns that having the presentment heard in the judicial district where he practices will cause him embarrassment with his present and future clients and it will cause a negative effect on his relationship with opposing counsel who practice in the area.   The respondent's presentment is a matter of public record.   How the news and possible gossip attendant to the respondent's presentment is disseminated through the judicial district is a matter beyond the scope of the court's dominion and control.   Although this issue may cause the respondent great concern, the respondent has been unable to demonstrate how any gossip and/or dissemination of news regarding his presentment has caused him any identifiable harm.   Moreover the respondent has failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice that would warrant the transfers of his presentment to another jurisdiction.

The foregoing motion having been presented, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:  DENIED.

BY THE COURT

Ginocchio, J.

Ginocchio, James P., J.