Local Attorney’s Law License Suspended

By Andrew Gorosko

DANBURY — A Danbury Superior Court judge has suspended Newtown attorney Stephen D. Wippermann’s law license for one year, based on a judicial review committee’s recommendation that the lawyer should be disciplined by the court for ethical misconduct.

In a July 9 ruling, Judge Arthur Hiller ordered the one-year license suspension to start August 1.

The suspension stems from a grievance filed against Mr Wippermann by former client Carol Nardecchia on May 15, 2000. In April 1997, Mr Wippermann represented Mrs Nardecchia and her husband, Michael, in a real estate closing on the purchase of their newly-built home, after which Mr Wippermann agreed to represent the Nardecchias in connection with problems with their new home.

The state judicial branch’s grievance committee found that although Mr Wippermann had told the Nardecchias that he had filed a lawsuit on their behalf concerning their complaints about their new home, he had not actually filed a lawsuit.

The committee found that Mr Wippermann’s actions in the matter constituted violations of various rules of professional conduct for lawyers.

Mr Wippermann’s representations to the Nardecchias concerning the lawsuit “constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the committee found. The panel found that Mr Wippermann’s later failure to respond to the Nardecchia grievance violated legal practice book rules.

Based on its September 13, 2000 hearing on the Nardecchia grievance, the grievance committee directed statewide bar counsel Daniel Horwitch to pursue discipline against Mr Wippermann in Danbury Superior Court, resulting in his one-year suspension.

In another grievance against Mr Wippermann which was filed on March 20, 2000, by Judith D. Evans, Ms Evans complained about Mr Wippermann’s representation of her in a medical malpractice case. Ms Evans had hired Mr Wippermann to pursue a medical malpractice action against a dentist.

In its review of the case, the grievance committee found that Mr Wippermann had not filed a lawsuit within the allowable time period to do so, and did not advise Ms Evans that the period during which such a lawsuit could be filed had expired. The committee found that Mr Wippermann had never handled such a dental malpractice case was not competent to handle such a case.

The committee expressed ethical concerns about Mr Wippermann’s use of outside counsel to aid him in the case, without first seeking the approval of Ms Evans.  The panel decided that Mr Wippermann’s various actions in the matter constituted ethical misconduct.

In the Evans case, the grievance committee issued Mr Wippermann a formal reprimand.

There are about 30,000 lawyers licensed to practice law in Connecticut, of which about 14,000 lawyers have offices in the state. From July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001, the state judicial branch suspended nine lawyers and disbarred one attorney, Mr Horwitch said.

When contacted by telephone, Mr Wippermann said his disciplinary case on the Nardecchia grievance did not proceed to a hearing stage in court. Of the discipline meted out by the judge, Mr Wippermann said “It was with my consent. We stipulated to it. It never went to a hearing.”

Mr Wippermann said he does not contest the findings of the grievance committee.

The violations for which he is being disciplined do not involve money, Mr Wippermann said.

“It didn’t involve money. It involved failure to keep people informed,” he said.

“I have had severe personal problems for the past two years and I have to get healthy,” he added.

Mr Wippermann said he will be working for Walnut Tree Developers while his one-year legal suspension is in effect, after which he will resume practicing law.

Walnut Tree Developers, the firm which is developing the Walnut Tree Village condominium complex in Sandy Hook, is among the many clients which Mr Wippermann has represented before town land use agencies.