David Doyle, the sole litigator for the Marcus Law Firm, has been representing the Town of Branford for the past five months while administratively suspended from the practice of law for failing to pay a $110 annual court fee due in 2006. Doyle was suspended on May 22, 2007.
This is Doyle’s latest foible. He came under severe criticism this summer for failing to alert the town’s new Tabor trial attorneys about a May 30 deadline for disclosing expert witnesses. As a result, the town could not call expert witnesses at trial.
In what has to be a moment of great embarrassment for the Cheryl Morris Administration, the First Selectwoman now has to live with the fact that she kept Doyle on the Tabor case and praised him for doing “an exceptional job” at a time when he was on suspension, formally deemed “inactive” by the Superior Court and not allowed to practice law.Doyle said he became aware of the situation yesterday, paid the fine today and “I am told that I’ve been reinstated as of today,” he said in an e‑mail to the Eagle. He expressed his regret. “This is entirely my fault (the fee is my responsibility and not the firm’s) and obviously will be quite embarrassing personally.”During the five months of his suspension, Doyle has represented the town in the Tabor trial, albeit from the sidelines, and has appeared in court in the William and Dawn Massey tax case. The town has been billed for his services.On Wednesday he told the court in the Founders Village affordable housing lawsuit that as of Nov. 1 the Marcus Law firm would no longer be town counsel. He gave the town short notice for a brief due Nov. 4. He wrote Shirley Rasmussen, the Town Planner, on Oct 3, while still on administrative suspension: “It does not make sense for me to undertake the task of creating the town’s brief in this matter since I may not be the attorney that argues the case.”An administrative suspension does not mean that Doyle has been disciplined. But an attorney is not considered “in good standing” under the court rules until such time as the fee is paid. Once he pays his $110 fee, he is automatically re-instated, without having to go before the court. The fee goes into a statewide client security fund, established in 1999 by the judges of the Superior Court, to provide reimbursement to clients who have been ripped off by dishonest attorneys. Michael Bowler, the statewide bar counsel, told the Eagle “sometimes lawyers forget to pay these things and it comes back to haunt them, but they can fix it very quickly…” Bowler confirmed that as of yesterday, Doyle was on the inactive list.Each lawyer gets an invoice to pay the fee, sent to the law firm address where he works. If the lawyer hasn’t responded, he is sent a reminder letter. “They get warnings that they will be suspended if they don’t pay,” Bowler said. Then the errant lawyer’s name goes on a list. The list is presented to a Superior Court Judge in Hartford who issues a suspension order. Finally, the list is published in the Connecticut Law Journal, the state’s official legal periodical. This year’s list was published on May 22nd. It turns out he was not alone. There were approximately 1,680 lawyers on the list.Bowler said “we try to do everything possible to let them know they will be suspended if they don’t pay.” Despite these efforts, Doyle did not respond. Nor did anyone else apparently inform him or the firm, which presumably would have taken immediate action to pay the bill.The statewide grievance committee takes one other action to alert an attorney of his delinquency. If the attorney files court papers under his own court or “juris” number, then the court computer rejects his “juris” number. This alerts the attorney to the problem. So how did David Doyle manage to file court papers all these months?He didn’t use his own number. In the recent Founders Village filing he used the Marcus law firm’s juris number. That doesn’t mean he was doing it intentionally, Bowler observed. He might use either number.And the client, the Town of Branford? The state has no list of a derelict attorney’s clients and therefore cannot inform them of a change in a town attorney’s status. According to Bowler, “there is no way for us to inform clients. Nor is there a requirement that he give notice. If he knew of this, there is no specific rule requiring that.”Let’s see how the First Selectwoman handles this one. ###