Opinion
No. CV 01 0183987
January 14, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 2-53 the applicant, Jonathan P. Rapoport, seeks reinstatement to the Bar of the State of Connecticut. On January 3, 2002, the applicant was, following a hearing before the Honorable Martin Nigro, disbarred for a period of five years. On August 22, 2007, the applicant petitioned for reinstatement to the bar. The matter was thereafter referred to the Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar for Fairfield County (Committee) which held a hearing, encompassing five separate days on the matter. The Committee subsequently issued a report unanimously recommending that Rapoport not be reinstated to the bar. Subsequently, the undersigned judges were empanelled by Chief Justice Rogers to rule on whether the application for readmission should be granted. On January 7, 2009, a hearing was held before this panel whereby the applicant presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered a statement on his own behalf.
The background of this case is as follows, on April 17, 2001, the applicant, Jonathan Rapoport, pled guilty to three counts of risk of injury to a minor, in violation of Connecticut General Statute § 53-21(a)(2). Although risk of injury is currently classified as a B felony, at the time that the applicant entered pleas to these offenses they were unclassified felonies, each punishable by a ten-year period of incarceration. The allegations of the criminal case asserted that the applicant had contact, by way of fondling and manipulating the genitalia, of three boys under sixteen years of age, over an extended period of time. The victims were all nephews of the applicant. The applicant admitted this behavior. On April 24, 2001, the applicant was sentenced by Judge Nigro to a term of thirty years in the custody of the commissioner of corrections, execution suspended after three years, with a thirty-five year period of probation to follow.
Hearings were conducted by the Committee on December 3, 2007, January 14, 2008, January 28, 2008, May 19, 2008, and June 23, 2008. Numerous witnesses testified before the Committee including the applicant's probation officer and his treating therapist, both of whom testified at the hearing before this panel as well. Members of the bar testified and submitted letters as to the applicant's good character. The applicant also personally addressed the Committee.
The Committee received evidence from a number of the victims' family members who testified in opposition to the application. They each expressed the violation of trust they felt over the applicant's behavior and the emotional damage sustained thereby. The state's attorney's office submitted the warrant affidavit, presentence investigation and sentencing transcripts as well. A number of exhibits were presented to the Committee during the hearing as were the transcripts of the previous individual hearings before Judge Nigro. The above evidence has been submitted to this panel in its entirety and reviewed by the same.
On October 27, 2008, the Committee issued a detailed written opinion recommending denial of the application for reinstatement noting the nature of the applicant's misconduct, the short duration since his release from prison and his potential for reoffending in the future as factors in their conclusion. The Committee's report was received and reviewed by this panel.
The dispositive issue raised by an application for reinstatement to the bar is "whether the applicant is presently fit to exercise the privileges and functions of an attorney, as an officer of the court, and as a confidential manager of the affairs and business of others entrusted to his care." In re Application of Avcollie, 43 Conn.Sup. 13, 14, 637 A.d 409 (1993). "An applicant for readmission to the bar must be possessed of such standards of honor and honesty and have such an appreciation of the distinctions between right and wrong in the conduct of men towards each other as will make him a fit and safe person to engage in the practice of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Committee v. Toro, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 03 0478961 (November 14, 2008, Lager, J.; Silbert, J.; Cosgrove, J.) [ 46 Conn. L. Rptr. 658]; citing In re Kone, 90 Conn. 440, 442, 97 A. 307 (1916). "[M]isconduct, indicative of moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or nonprofessional, justifies . . . exclusion from the bar." Statewide Grievance Committee v. Shluger, 230 Conn. 668, 681, n. 17, 646 A.2d 781 (1994). Ultimately, the burden of proving fitness to practice law and good moral character rests upon the applicant. In re Application of Presnick, 53 Conn.App. 174, 176, 728 A.2d 1159 (1999); Statewide Grievance Committee v. Toro, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 03 0478961.
The standard of review in cases involving reinstatement to the bar was delineated by the Connecticut Supreme Court in O'Brien's Petition, 79 Conn. 46, 55-56, 63 A. 777 (1906), when the court ruled that withholding of a license must be subject to fair investigation of the facts. Id. The issue before this panel, therefore, is "whether the committee . . . in withholding its approval for admission, acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or in abuse of its discretion or without fair investigation of the facts . . ." Friedman v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 77 Conn.App. 526, 529, 824 A.2d 866, appeal dismissed, 270 Conn. 457, 853 A.2d 496 (2003); Statewide Grievance Committee v. Klein, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 98 0165292 (November 26, 2001, Licari J.; O'Keefe, J.; Mintz, J.). The duty of the panel is to determine whether the committee acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in abuse of its discretion, or from prejudice and ill will, in its consideration of the application. Friedman v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, supra, 77 Conn.App. 529; In re Application of Avcollie, supra, 43 Conn.Sup. 16. This requires a determination of "whether the reasons advanced to support the recommendation [of the Committee] have merit and are reasonable and proper in view of the subordinate facts found and the applicable principles of law." In re Application of Koenig, 152 Conn. 125, 133, 204 A.2d 33 (1964); Statewide Grievance Committee v. Toro, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 03 0478961.
Thus, in a case such as this, where the question of reinstatement is within the discretion of the Committee, this panel reviews the Committee's decision on the record of its proceedings to determine whether it has abused its discretion. Friedman v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, supra, 77 Conn.App. 529. This panel does not sit as factfinder, but rather is empanelled to review the adequacy of the evidence before the Committee and whether the record as presented supports the Committee's recommendation. Scott v. State Bar Examining Committee, 220 Conn. 812, 822-23, 601 A.2d 1021 (1992).
The record in this case indicates a comprehensive hearing before the Committee extending over several days and spanning a period of months. During this time the applicant was granted full and fair opportunity to present all evidence he deemed appropriate. As previously noted, the Committee heard the testimony from the applicant's treating therapist, probation officer, colleagues, friends and family members.
The record is devoid of any bias, prejudice or ill will towards the applicant. In fact, just the opposite stands true. The Committee credited the long legal career of the applicant and noted the applicant's compliance with the conditions of his probation and his sexual offender treatment. The record reflects a fair and thorough investigation of the facts.
Nonetheless, our courts have long recognized that a "redemptive and rehabilitative life requires the passage of time for documentation. The more serious the misconduct, the more time required to meet the burden of moral trustworthiness." In re Application of Avcollie, supra, 43 Conn.Sup. 22-23. It is irrefutable that the crimes of which the applicant admitted and was ultimately convicted, directly implicate the moral parameters of trustworthiness and fitness to practice law. This is particularly true in this case, where the evidence presented to the Committee established that the multiple victims involved were all minors, entrusted to the applicant's care, and with whom he had long established relationships. The Committee referenced allegations of prior unidentified victim misconduct and also noted that "for his entire adult life the applicant has engaged in illegal and immoral conduct." The Committee's concern about the short duration of time since the applicant's release from prison and his potential risk to the community are borne out by the evidence presented at the hearing and the record as a whole.
On the basis of a complete review of the record, as previously set forth, and the testimony presented at this hearing, this panel concludes that the Committee did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, in abuse of its discretion, or without a fair investigation of the facts. It is therefore the unanimous decision of this panel that the recommendation of the Committee was not an abuse of its discretion in light of the record presented in its entirety. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted, and application for reinstatement to the bar is denied.
So Ordered.