Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the denial of Charles B. Spadoni’s application for reinstatement to the bar. It held that the standing committee had authority under Practice Book § 2-53 to inquire into presuspension conduct relevant to his present moral fitness, including conduct underlying convictions that had been reversed. The court also held that the committee properly considered Spadoni’s continued denial of his obstruction of justice conviction when evaluating his honesty, rehabilitation, and present fitness to practice law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the standing committee had authority under Practice Book § 2-53 to question the defendant about presuspension conduct, including conduct underlying criminal convictions that had been reversed on appeal.
- Whether the standing committee improperly relied on the defendant's failure to accept his obstruction of justice conviction with sincerity and honesty after he asserted a plausible claim of innocence.
Holdings
- Under Practice Book § 2-53, the standing committee had the authority and duty to investigate the defendant's presuspension conduct, including conduct underlying reversed convictions, when that conduct could inform its assessment of his present fitness to practice law and good moral character.
- The committee properly treated the defendant's claim of innocence and failure to accept responsibility for his affirmed obstruction of justice conviction as evidence to consider with the other reinstatement factors; a plausible reconciliation of innocence with the conviction did not make the remaining Ganim criteria inapplicable or require reinstatement.
Key quotations
“The committee may consider the applicant’s conduct prior to or after his or her suspension, regardless of whether that conduct served as the basis for his or her suspension.”
“Although failing to acknowledge or exhibit remorse for his misconduct does not alone bar the defendant’s application for reinstatement, it may be considered in conjunction with all of the other factors utilized to determine if the defendant has met his burden to show rehabilitation, good moral character, and a present fitness to be reinstated to the legal profession.”
Factual background
Charles B. Spadoni, a Connecticut attorney, was convicted in federal court of obstruction of justice in connection with a public corruption scheme; his convictions for racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud were later reversed, while the obstruction conviction was affirmed. After his suspension ended, he applied for reinstatement and, at the committee hearing, refused to answer questions about conduct surrounding the reversed convictions while maintaining that he was innocent of wrongdoing, including the obstruction offense. The standing committee found that his lack of candor and refusal to accept responsibility prevented a finding of rehabilitation, good moral character, and present fitness to practice law.
Procedural history
After the defendant was convicted in federal court of obstruction of justice and other offenses, his Connecticut law license was suspended from January 31, 2007, through September 9, 2016. He applied for reinstatement under Practice Book § 2-53, and the application was referred to the standing committee, which held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denial because the defendant lacked good moral character, candor, and rehabilitation. A three-judge Superior Court panel accepted the recommendation and denied reinstatement. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.