FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Philip S. Robertson,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-150

 

State of Connecticut, Statewide Grievance Committee,

 

                        Respondent                  April 26, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 17, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a judicial body and public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letters dated March 2 and April 12, 1994, the complainant requested a list of the names, and business and residence (town only) addresses of all duly licensed Connecticut attorneys ("attorneys").

 

            3.  It is found that subsequent to March 2, 1994 but prior to March 7, 1994 the respondent agreed to comply fully, including disclosing home address information.

 

            4.  However, by reply letters dated March 7 and April 19, 1994, the respondent agreed only to provide the complainant with a list of the names and business addresses of the attorneys and declined to provide the residential and home town address information.

 

            5.         Specifically, the respondent refused to provide the residential address information because that information, it claims, is voluntarily provided to permit the fulfillment of its adjudicatory, rather than its administrative function.

 

Docket #FIC 94-150                           Page 2

 

            6.         By letter dated May 10, 1994, and filed with the Commission on May 12, 1994, the complainant appealed the respondent's denial.

 

            7.         It is found that the respondent processes, investigates and adjudicates grievances filed against attorneys in the state of Connecticut.

 

            8.         It is found that beginning in 1990, the respondent assumed the responsibility for attorney registration in Connecticut, pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book 27A(d) (1992).

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent created a form designed to elicit the information necessary for the attorney registration process.

 

            10.       It is found that all attorneys are required to provide residential address information on the attorney registration form, returnable to the respondent.

 

            11.       It is found that the mandatory residential address provision was implemented to facilitate the respondent's processing and investigation of grievance complaints by relying on the use of residential address information to locate attorneys who are the subject of such complaints.

 

            12.       It is found that the respondent relies on the required residential address information to locate and/or communicate with attorneys who are the subject of grievance complaints only after a business address proves unavailing.

 

            13.       The respondent claims that requiring public disclosure of attorneys' residential addresses will make it more difficult to fulfill the mandate of Conn. Prac. Book 27J (1993), because fewer attorneys will provide residential address information, thereby making some complaints extremely difficult to investigate.

 

            14.       It is found that although the registration of attorneys by the respondent is not an inherently judicial function, because of the respondent's reliance on residential address information in its investigation and adjudication of complaints against attorneys such information does not pertain solely to the respondent's performance of an administrative function, within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 94-150                           Page 3

 

            15.       It is therefore concluded, based upon the facts of this case, that the respondent did not violate the complainant's rights when it failed to provide the complainant with the residential address information requested.

 

            16.  However, it is also concluded that in accordance with 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., the respondent should have provided the complainant with the names, business and hometown only of the attorneys.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         Forthwith, the respondent shall provide to the complainant, free of charge, the name, business address, and hometown only of the attorneys in the state of Connecticut.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 26, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-150                           Page 4

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

PHILIP S. ROBERTSON

c/o Morgan J. O'Brien, Esq.

Room 3400 LOB

Hartford, CT 06106

 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esq.

231 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission