Disbarred Attorney Requested Readmission To Practice Law

Disbarred Attorney Requested Readmission To Practice Law

The Connecticut Law Tribune - January 17, 2011

CASE: Statewide Grievance Committee v. Egbarin
COURT: Hartford J.D., at Hartford
COURT OPINION BY: Keller, J., Graham, J., and Scholl, J.
“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 toward each other as will make him a fit and safe person to engage in the practice of law,” pursuant to Statewide Grievance Committee v. Kalkstein, a March 2009 decision of the Hartford Superior Court. In June 1999, a court found that the defendant attorney, Nitor Egbarin, “fraudulently misrepresented relevant facts to his mortgage lender,” in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and suspended the attorney from the practice of law for five years. In 2001, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed. Another judge disbarred Egbarin from the practice of law in November 2001, as a result of allegations that he withheld a client’s settlement funds for one year and failed to honor letters of protection to health care providers. After he was disbarred, Egbarin apparently worked for financial services companies and managed soccer players. Egbarin requested readmission to the bar of the State of Connecticut in January 2009. A committee on recommendations found that Egbarin failed to establish he should be readmitted, because he did not engage in counseling, express that much regret, or pay restitution to complainants. The committee also found that Egbarin took only one continuing legal education course in ethics and did not take additional legal education courses. (Egbarin subsequently submitted evidence that he took a civil practice and procedure course in September 2010.) Egbarin failed to support his claim he worked as a paralegal and to submit references from his most recent employers. He failed to establish significant involvement in the law after he was disbarred in 2001. The committee’s recommendation was not arbitrary, unreasonable or an abuse of discretion, and the Superior Court affirmed.