Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpear, J.
I concur in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s judgment, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. I do not agree that General Statutes § 51-91a applies and, therefore, dissent from the remand ordering the trial court to impose at least the minimum period of suspension dictated by the statute. The trial court might well conclude that a suspension of five years (or more) is warranted. I view the length of the suspension period as a function of the court’s discretion and not the result of a statutory mandate.
*467I view § 51-91a as inapplicable because, on its face, it…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Matter of GoldbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. ShlugerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- In re PaganoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- In Re Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of DelawareSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
- Grievance Committee of the Hartford County Bar v. BroderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.