The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law
SC21001 - Wisniewski v. Palermino ("Today we are called on to consider
the scope of an attorney’s liability to third-party beneficiaries of a will. The plaintiffs, two of decedent Edward
Wisniewski’s grandchildren, Emma Wisniewski and
Madelyn Wisniewski, and his friend, Barbara Saccardo,1
brought this action alleging professional negligence and
breach of contract by the defendants Anthony J. Palermino, an attorney, and his law firm, the Law Office of
Anthony J. Palermino, LLC, in connection with estate
planning work performed by the defendant for Wisniewski in April, 2018.2 The plaintiffs alleged that Wisniewski
retained the defendant to draft a will that would transfer
his interest in his TD Ameritrade security account, valued at $845,367.57, in five equal shares to them, to Wisniewski’s daughter, Joanna Cooper, and to Joanna
Cooper’s child. Wisniewski died the next month. Joanna
Cooper—the only designated beneficiary on the account—
received the entire amount pursuant to the beneficiary
designation on file with TD Ameritrade.3 The plaintiffs
alleged that the defendant was professionally negligent
for failing (1) to advise Wisniewski that he needed to
change the TD Ameritrade account’s beneficiary designation so that the account’s assets would pass through
Wisniewski’s estate in accordance with the will, and
(2) to ensure that the account’s beneficiary designation
was in fact changed. The plaintiffs also alleged that
the defendant breached his contract with Wisniewski
because he did not draft the will in accordance with
Wisniewski’s wishes. The trial court ultimately dismissed
the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue
that the trial court erred in dismissing both claims.
We agree that the trial court improperly dismissed the
plaintiffs’ professional negligence claim. We conclude,
however, that the trial court properly dismissed the
plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.")
AC46813, AC46890 - In re Cunha ("These consolidated appeals arise from disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, Nickola J. Cunha, related to her disbarment from the practice of law. In Docket No. AC 46813, the respondent appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering that funds she claimed as attorney's fees be disbursed to her former clients (postdisbarment action). In Docket No. AC 46890, the respondent appeals from the same judgment and, additionally, the trial court's judgment of dismissal rendered in a separate action commenced by the respondent in which she sought a declaratory judgment with respect to attorney's fees related to her representation of former clients (declaratory judgment action). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly permitted third parties to intervene in the postdisbarment action where the intervenors lacked standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and (2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the claims raised by the intervening parties and by a nonparty. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in AC 46813 and consequently dismiss the appeal in AC 46890 as moot.")
AC46607 - Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee ("The plaintiff attorney, John W. Mills, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Statewide Grievance Committee (committee). The committee reprimanded the plaintiff after finding that he had filed a motion containing statements that violated rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly dismissed his appeal because (1) the reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee (reviewing committee) applied the wrong test for determining whether he made statements knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, (2) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that his statements violated rule 8.2 (a), and (3) the committee abused its discretion by reprimanding the plaintiff. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC46606 -
Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee (“The committee found that the
plaintiff acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct by failing to name his client’s business as a party to her
lawsuit and by failing to provide proof of the client’s individual damages. The
plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed his appeal
because (1) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that he
acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1, and (2) the committee abused its
discretion by ordering him to complete three hours of continuing legal education.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
SC20751 - Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ("This case requires us to consider whether, under Practice Book § 13-4, an attorney may be sanctioned for engaging in ex parte communications with an expert witness who has been retained and disclosed by the adverse party for the purpose of providing testimony in litigation. The defendant in error, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's order imposing sanctions on the plaintiff in error, Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC (firm), the law firm representing the plaintiff, Jacqueline Epright, in the underlying underinsured motorist action brought by Epright against Liberty Mutual. The trial court imposed monetary sanctions after finding that attorneys with the firm engaged in impermissible ex parte communications with Liberty Mutual's expert witness, James Depuy, an orthopedic surgeon retained and disclosed by Liberty Mutual to provide testimony regarding damages and causation. The trial court determined that the firm's communication with Depuy was a clear violation of the rules of expert discovery set forth in § 13-4. The Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial court, concluding that § 13-4 does not clearly prohibit ex parte communication between an attorney and an opposing party's disclosed expert witness. We agree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
AC46208 - Martinelli v. Martinelli (“In the latest chapter in this family dispute arising out of the administration of the estate of Kevin P. Martinelli (Kevin), the plaintiffs, Aubri E. Martinelli, Zachary Martinelli, and Linzy Martinelli, who are Kevin’s children, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, Martin P. Martinelli (Martin), who is Kevin’s brother and was the first executor of Kevin’s estate, and Reid & Riege, P.C. (Reid & Riege), the law firm that represented Martin in the administration of Kevin’s estate. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common-law conversion, and statutory theft against Martin and their legal malpractice claim against Reid & Riege. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that they lacked standing to assert their claims against the defendants, and (2) denied their request to amend their complaint. We are unpersuaded by either claim and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
SC20719 - Cooke v. Williams ("In Taylor v. Wallace, 184 Conn. App. 43, 51–52, 194 A.3d 343 (2018), the Appellate Court adopted what is generally referred to as the exoneration rule for civil claims seeking relief against a plaintiff's former criminal defense or habeas counsel for harm allegedly caused by the lawyer's legal malpractice. The exoneration rule provides that appellate or postconviction relief is a necessary element of a claim for criminal malpractice if that claim challenges the validity of an underlying conviction by requiring proof that the attorney's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's conviction as a defendant in the underlying criminal case. Id. The Appellate Court in Taylor further explained that the failure to obtain appellate or postconviction relief renders the criminal malpractice claim unripe and, therefore, not justiciable. Id. Applying the exoneration rule to the present case, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the claim of criminal malpractice filed by the plaintiff, Ian T. Cooke, against the defendants, John R. Williams and John R. Williams and Associates, LLC, the attorney and law firm that represented the plaintiff in his habeas case. Cooke v. Williams, 206 Conn. App. 151, 165, 259 A.3d 1211 (2021).
...
In the present case, we conclude that, because the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice necessarily requires findings that would undermine the validity of his underlying conviction and he has not obtained appellate or postconviction relief, he has not alleged a cognizable claim of criminal malpractice. We reverse the Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the criminal malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")
AC45766 - Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro ("In this presentment matter, the respondent attorney, Enrico Vaccaro, appeals from the judgment of the trial court disciplining him after the Statewide Grievance Committee (grievance committee) directed the petitioner, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (disciplinary counsel), to file a presentment pursuant to Practice Book § 2-47 (d) (1) for the purpose of imposing appropriate discipline. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) erred by failing to consider that the delay in the underlying disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights and (2) abused its discretion by suspending him from the practice of law for a period of ninety days. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46194 - Lafferty v. Jones ("The plaintiff in error, Norman A. Pattis, a Connecticut attorney and counsel of record for the defendants, Alex Emric Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, in the underlying consolidated tort actions arising out of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, filed this writ of error challenging the order of the trial court suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months after determining that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Pattis claims that the court (1) violated his procedural due process rights in initiating, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him, pursuant to its inherent authority to discipline attorneys, on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence, (2) improperly denied his motion to disqualify the Honorable Barbara N. Bellis from presiding over the disciplinary proceedings, (3) improperly determined that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and (4) imposed an arbitrary and disproportionate disciplinary order. We reject Pattis' first two claims, but we conclude that the court incorrectly found that he violated certain provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, we grant in part the writ of error and remand the matter to the court to vacate the improper findings, as well as the attendant disciplinary order, and to conduct a new hearing on sanctions before a different judge.")
AC45261 - McDonnell v. Roberts ("In this action, the plaintiff, Patricia A. McDonnell, appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit rendered in favor of the defendants, Norman A. Roberts II, the Law Offices of Norman A. Roberts, LLC, and GraberRoberts, LLC. The plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit on the grounds that the court erred in finding that she failed to show that a good cause of action existed at the time of the judgment of nonsuit and that she was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting the action. We affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC45952 - Kuselias v. Zingaro & Cretella, LLC (“The plaintiff, Kristen Kuselias, brought the civil action underlying this appeal, in which she raised claims of legal malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, the law firm of Zingaro & Cretella, LLC, and Attorney Eugene J. Zingaro. The plaintiff appeals from (1) the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants after it granted their motion for summary judgment with respect to all three counts of her complaint and (2) the denial of her subsequent motion to reargue and reconsider. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to her claims of legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation, despite her assertion that these claims could properly be brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-592, the accidental failure of suit statute, and (2) denying her motion to reargue and reconsider its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45424 - Ambrose v. Ambrose ("The primary issue in this writ of error challenging the disbarment of an attorney is whether her due process rights were violated by the procedure used by the first defendant in error, Hon. Thomas G. Moukawsher. The plaintiff in error, Nickola J. Cunha, who is the former attorney for a party in the underlying dissolution action, challenges in this writ of error the order of Judge Moukawsher disbarring her from the practice of law. Cunha claims that Judge Moukawsher (1) violated her constitutional right to due process by failing to give her adequate notice of a disciplinary hearing and by deciding that misconduct had occurred without an independent hearing on the issue, (2) violated her first amendment right to free speech by disbarring her for the arguments she made in connection with a motion to disqualify, (3) erred in finding that she had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct because those findings were not factually supported by clear and convincing evidence and (4) imposed an excessive penalty by disbarring her from the practice of law. We conclude that no constitutional violation occurred, the findings of violations of Rules of Professional Conduct were supported by clear and convincing evidence and there was no abuse of discretion in ordering Cunha disbarred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44763 - Office of Chief
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wynne (“On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly
(1) approved the applications to become the defendant’s supervising attorneys
in light of their proposal to supervise the defendant remotely and (2) held
that, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-47B, a court may expressly permit, by
written order, a deactivated attorney who is employed by a supervising attorney
in the role of paralegal or legal assistant to communicate with clients and
third parties regarding matters that are the subject of representation by the
supervising attorney or his or her firm, provided that the communication does
not amount to engaging in the practice of law. During the pendency of this
appeal, however, the trial court granted a motion to terminate the supervising
attorney relationships at issue. As such, we ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot.
In their briefs, the parties argue that the appeal is not moot under the ‘capable
of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine. We are
not persuaded that this exception applies and, therefore, dismiss this appeal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”)
AC46194 - Lafferty v. Jones ("This writ of error was commenced by the plaintiff in error, Norman A. Pattis—a Connecticut attorney and counsel of record for the defendants, Alex Emric Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, in the underlying consolidated tort actions arising out of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The plaintiff in error challenges the order of the second defendant in error, Honorable Barbara N. Bellis, suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In response to the writ of error, the first defendant in error, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of misjoinder. Judge Bellis also filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error for lack of proper service of process. By separate orders dated March 1, 2023, we denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and granted Judge Bellis' motion to dismiss, indicating in both orders that an opinion would follow. This opinion provides our reasons for those orders.
.....
The motion to dismiss filed by disciplinary counsel is denied; the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Bellis is granted and the writ of error as it pertains to Judge Bellis is dismissed.")
AC44826 - Disciplinary Counsel v. Spadoni (Attorney misconduct; application for reinstatement to bar; "The defendant, Charles B. Spadoni, an attorney suspended from the practice of law, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court denying his application for reinstatement to the bar of this state. On appeal, the defendant claims that the three judge panel of the Superior Court considering the defendant's application for reinstatement to the bar improperly accepted the report and recommendation of the Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar for New Haven County (committee) because (1) the committee exceeded the scope of its investigative authority by inquiring as to the defendant's presuspension misconduct, and (2) the committee improperly found that the defendant failed to accept his federal conviction for obstruction of justice with sincerity and honesty. We disagree with the defendant and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC44320 - Gianetti v. Neigher (This appeal arises out of a legal malpractice action brought by the plaintiff, Charles D. Gianetti, against the defendant, Alan Neigher, an attorney who represented the plaintiff in a prior civil action (prior action) against Norwalk Hospital (hospital). The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness, Attorney Bruce H. Stanger, because (1) the sanction of precluding the testimony was not proportional to the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the expert disclosure requirements set forth in Practice Book § 13-4, which the plaintiff contends could have been adequately remedied by a less severe sanction, and (2) in so sanctioning the plaintiff, the court improperly determined that the expert’s opinion was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. The plaintiff additionally claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because (1) the court failed to consider the testimony of his expert witness, and (2) even if the court properly precluded the testimony of his expert witness, a genuine issue of material fact nonetheless existed as to the legal malpractice elements of causation and damages. We affirm the judgment of the court.)
AC44830 - Pringle v. Pattis ("The self-represented plaintiff, Barry Pringle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Norman Pattis, Frederick M. O'Brien and Daniel M. Erwin. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the exoneration rule, which generally provides that a legal malpractice claim is not ripe for adjudication unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the relevant underlying conviction has been invalidated. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44388 - Gottesman v. Kratter ("These two appeals arise from actions brought by the plaintiff, Amy B. Gottesman, concerning an underlying marital dissolution action. In Docket No. AC 44297, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting (1) the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Mark M. Kratter, on the plaintiff's claim for legal malpractice against Kratter and (2) the motion to strike count two of the revised complaint alleging breach of contract. Specifically, she claims that the court erred in granting summary judgment for failure to disclose an expert witness when she had not been precluded from disclosing an expert and because the time in which she was required to disclose had not yet expired. With respect to the motion to strike, she claims that the court erred in concluding that the allegations in the revised complaint failed to allege that the defendant breached an agreement to reach a specified result. In Docket No. AC 44388, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant law firms, the Law Offices of Mark M. Kratter, LLC, and Kratter & Gustafson, LLC, as to counts one and thirteen of the third revised complaint, which alleged claims against the law firms for legal malpractice and transferee liability, respectively. Specifically, she claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because the law firms failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and because the time in which she had to disclose an expert witness in support of her claim of legal malpractice against the law firms had not yet expired. Although the appeals have not been consolidated, we write one opinion for purposes of judicial economy in which we assess the claims raised in both appeals. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
AC43670 - Carter v. Bowler ("The self-represented plaintiff, Anthony C. Carter, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Michael P. Bowler. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint on the ground of absolute immunity. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44494 - Green v. Paz ("The self-represented plaintiff, Courtney Green, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Brittany B. Paz, Norman Pattis, and Pattis Law Firm. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing his legal malpractice action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the exoneration rule, i.e., that a legal malpractice claim is not ripe for adjudication unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the relevant underlying conviction has been invalidated. The defendants claim that the plaintiff's action is not ripe for judicial review because his underlying conviction has not been invalidated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.")
AC43733 - Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Elder ("The defendant attorney, Joseph Elder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court reprimanding him for violations of the rules of practice and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court erred in not dismissing the presentment complaint against him because the reviewing committee (1) did not abide by the time frames set forth in General Statutes § 51-90g (c) and Practice Book § 2-35 (i), and (2) improperly considered allegations of misconduct that were filed by the plaintiff, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, after the reviewing committee had made a probable cause determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")