Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (203552)	11/16/2001 8:25:55 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769670

Gee flapjack, when it rains it pours. It looks like 47 other people had a major problem with the local Teamsters union as were fired as well. Live with your head buried in the sand if you must. jud.state.ct.us Complainant : vs. Robert M. Cheverie Respondent : Grievance Complaint #96-0239 PROPOSED DECISION Pursuant to Practice Book '27J, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on April 3, 1997. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on September 17, 1996 and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford-New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 & 17 Grievance Panel on November 15, 1996, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on February 14, 1997. The Complainant, represented by counsel, and the Respondent each appeared and gave testimony. This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence: On or about August 31, 1995, the Complainant was discharged from his job with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. The Complainant retained Attorney John C. Scully of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. One of the charges filed was against the Teamsters Union Local. The Local was represented by the Respondent. The complaint filed by the Complainant with the National Labor Relations Board was signed by Attorney Scully. On May 8, 1996, the Respondent filed an answer with the National Labor Relations Board and forwarded a copy to Attorney Scully. The Respondent, therefore, was clearly aware that the Complainant was represented by counsel. On May 15, 1996, the Respondent, without the authorization of Attorney Scully, telephoned the Complainant directly and made a settlement offer. The Complainant told the Respondent that he was represented by counsel. The Respondent told the Complainant to communicate his settlement offer to Attorney Scully. The Respondent also told the Complainant that there was a possibility that the objectives of the National Right to Work Foundation might be different from those of the Complainant. This reviewing committee also took the following into consideration: The Respondent testified that his telephone call to the Complainant was made from his car telephone. He testified that he obtained the Complainant's telephone number from his office and telephoned the Complainant in an attempt to settle the Complainant's case. At the time of his telephone call, approximately forty-seven individuals had been discharged from Sikorsky Aircraft and, of those, only three, including the Complainant, had retained counsel. The Respondent had been communicating directly with many of the forty-seven individuals in an attempt to settle the cases. The Respondent acknowledged, however, that in obtaining the Complainant's telephone number from his office, he did not ask whether the file reflected whether the Complainant was represented by counsel. It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Even if we were to give consideration to the Respondent's claim that he did not realize that the Complainant was represented by counsel at the time of his call, his continuing his conversation with the Complainant after being told by the Complainant during the conversation that the Complainant was represented by counsel, was inexcusable. Further aggravating the situation is the nature of the Respondent's comments regarding the Complainant's counsel and the National Right to Work Foundation after being told that the Complainant was represented by counsel. It is the opinion of this reviewing committee that the Respondent should be reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee. Attorney M. Katherine Webster-O'Keefe Mr. Carmen Donnarumma