Legal Opinion
Disciplinary Counsel v. Elder
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 2, 2017No. SC19698PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPalmer, J.
The issue that we must decide in this case is whether the six year limitation period set forth in Practice Book § 2-32(a)(2)(E) 1 constitutes a mandatory bar to grievance complaints brought after that six year limitation period has expired or whether the provision, instead, is discretionary. On April 4, 2014, Wesley S. Spears filed a grievance complaint against the defendant, Attorney Joseph Elder, alleging that the defendant had engaged in professional misconduct in 2004. A reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee conducted a hearing on the grievance complaint and found by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Massameno v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Wiseman v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Thomas v. Department of Developmental ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. ShlugerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. EgbarinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. BuchmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Peck v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- Brown v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
- Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2025
- Sokolovsky v. MulhollandConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.