Nitor V Egbarin

“"The court is satisfied that all conditions in its prior orders have been satisfied. The court is also persuaded that the disciplinary process has been instructive to the Respondent with respect to his obligations surrounding fee arrangements with clients, and it is clear that he is fully aware that he needs to take considerably more care in making, documenting, and carrying out fee agreements in the future. For these reasons, the court modifies its previous orders...a reprimand shall issue.."”

“This reprimand in 2019 concerned a client who told me she operated a non-profit business. Consequently, I gave her a fee discount that I usually give charitable organizations. In the course of representing her, it became evident that my client lied about her business which was actually a for-profit business. When I revoked the fee discount, she filed a grievance claiming I charged her my standard fee instead of my discount fee. I was reprimanded for poor drafting of my fee agreement.”

“This reprimand in 2019 concerned a client who told me she operated a non-profit business. Consequently, I gave her a fee discount that I usually give charitable organizations. In the course of representing her, it became evident that my client lied about her business which was actually a for-profit business. When I revoked the fee discount, she filed a grievance claiming I charged her my standard fee instead of my discount fee. I was reprimanded for poor drafting of my fee agreement.”

“This was a disbarment by default. I did not receive notice of the hearing and never attended hearing. A few weeks before the hearing, I wrote court and requested for concurrent suspension. I made this request after the Conn. Supreme voted 2:1, with 2 abstentions, against taking my appeal of the 5-year suspension. I did not receive any more notices and I believed my request was accepted. I discovered later that the court entered a default disbarment because I did not appear for hearing,”

“This reprimand in 1999 concerned an overdraft of $250 on my IOLTA account in 1999. The deposition transcript provider insisted on payment of costs for transcripts using my IOLTA account instead of my business account. In the process of transferring my own money from my business account to my IOLTA account, an overdraft on the IOLTA account arose. The overdraft was corrected. This did not involve any client's fund whatsoever. I was simply helping my client pay his costs using my money.”

“Claude Picard and his attorney, Scott F. Lewis, filed a grievance complaint as a means to collect a phantom $30K 2nd mortgage. Picard falsely testified in court that I completed an application for him for the 2nd mortgage and gave him my tax returns without disclosing to him that I owed taxes. There was no 2nd mortgage application and I did not give him my tax returns. The Judge accepted this false testimony and suspended me for 5-years. Scott Lewis knew his client's testimony in court was false”