Judge’s grievance against attorney resolved with counseling, training
A statewide panel has agreed to allow Norwich attorney Sikandar I. Rana to undergo a year of counseling and attend an ethics course, both at his own expense, to resolve a grievance brought against him by Superior Court Judge John M. Newson.
The proposed resolution, considered a sanction for violating the rules of professional conduct, was fashioned after Rana appeared before a panel in Bridgeport last month with an attorney.
Newson, who had filed the grievance in November 2016, did not attend. The judge had written in the grievance that over the past year, “Rana has engaged in a continuing and increasing course of disrespectful, unprofessional, and confrontational conduct towards court clerks, court marshals, and at least one client while at the Norwich Judicial District Courthouse on professional business.”
Questioned about the hearing earlier this month, Rana said he already has been attending counseling and will be taking the ethics course. He deferred further questions to his attorney, Daniel Horgan, who did not respond to a telephone message from The Day.
Rana, 49, has been licensed to practice law in Connecticut since 2009 and has no disciplinary history. According to the grievance file, he emigrated from Lahore, Pakistan, in 2004 and became a U.S. citizen.
He obtained his law degree from Franklin Pierce University in 2006 and worked as a temporary assistant clerk in the Norwich courthouse from 2007 to 2010. He continues to practice at the Norwich court, known as Geographical Area 21, and in other courts. Newson, who presided over criminal cases in Norwich, recently transferred to the Danielson courthouse.
The grievance first went to a panel in the New London Judicial District, which found probable cause that Rana had violated the rules of professional conduct. The case was heard next by a panel in Bridgeport, and the proposed resolution signed by a representative of the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The proposed resolution requires the agreement of the Statewide Grievance Committee.
“Although the Respondent (Rana) denies some or all of the material facts in the complaint, he acknowledges that there is sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts constituting a violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct,” the proposal says.
According to the Connecticut Practice Book, a violation of Rule 8.4(4) means that the violator engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.