Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Richard Silverstein (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (herein after the petitioner) has presented pursuant to the Practice Book § 2–82(c) against Attorney Richard Silverstein of New Haven.

In connection with Grievance Complaint # 10–0521 Attorney Silverstein has tendered an affidavit pursuant to Practice Book § 2–82(d) in which he admits that he failed to supervise a subordinate and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by submitting inaccurate invoices as a special public defender in violation of Rules 5.3(2) and 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court accepts the pleas that Attorney Silverstein has made in this matter pursuant to the affidavit he has filed.   The petitioner and Attorney Silverstein disagree on the appropriate disposition to be imposed.

This presentment involves bills submitting by Attorney Silverstein to the Public Defender's Office in 2002 in his representation of Ira Alston as a Special Public Defender.   Ira Alston was charged with Murder.   Jury selection commenced on May 31, 2002 and a verdict of Manslaughter was rendered on July 3, 2002.   Ira Alston filed a complaint after reviewing Attorney Silverstein's bills submitted on his behalf.   Attorney Silverstein agrees that the time spent in and out of court was not submitted accurately to the Public Defender's Office.   A subordinate submitted these on his behalf and Attorney Silverstein accepts responsibility for not reviewing them adequately.   Attorney Silverstein states the time devoted to the case was accurate but the submissions were inaccurate.   He has paid restitution as determined by the Public Defender's Office on this matter.

Attorney Silverstein has been before the disciplinary board before.   He has been remanded before on several occasions for not having a written fee agreement with his clients.

The petitioner argues the dispositional part of attorney discipline is to protect the public and administrator of justice.   The petitioner requests Attorney Silverstein be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Attorney Dow on behalf of Attorney Silverstein argues a reprimand is appropriate disposition based on the underlying facts of this matter.   He argues there was no dishonest involved and it was an administrative oversight.   He also argued this complaint was from nine years ago and predated his prior disciplinary matters.

Attorney Silverstein no longer accepts special public defender cases.

This court finds that Attorney Silverstein did not intend to defraud the Public Defender's Office.   The complaint did predate his prior disciplinary matters.   He has admitted he failed to supervise a subordinate nine years ago and took responsibility for said failure.   He apologized to the court for his actions.   He has paid restitution as determined by the Public Defenders Office.

Based on all the above the court concludes the appropriate sanction in this case is a reprimand.

Accordingly, the court does hereby reprimand the Respondent, Attorney Richard Silverstein.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Brian T., J.