Advance Release Opinions – November 17

Connecticut Appellate Court

The Appellate Court advance released opinions involving collections (attorney’s fees) and sanctions, which I review below. It also released opinions involving summary process (housing authority as landlord), criminal prosecution (2 opinions), habeas corpus, and termination of parental rights (2 opinions), which I do not review.

Beck and Beck, LLC v. Costello – Nothing to see here folks. Law firm sued for its fee. Defendant counterclaimed. Trial court struck counterclaims. Defendant appealed. While that appeal was pending, defendant filed for bankruptcy but did not list the counterclaims as contingent or unliquidated claims. Bankruptcy trustee issued a report of no distribution and bankruptcy case was closed. Appellate Court reversed the striking of the counterclaims. On remand, the trial court granted law firm’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of standing because the bankruptcy trustee had not abandoned the counterclaims. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that the trustee’s report of no distribution was not an abandonment because defendant had not listed the counterclaims as assets.

Picard v. The Guilford House, LLC – Not much to see here either. Plaintiff’s former attorney brought a writ of error challenging the trial court’s imposition of financial sanctions for former attorney’s misconduct while conducting an out-of-state deposition in the underlying matter. Trial court granted underlying defendants’ application for sanctions against former attorney in the form of the attorney’s fees defendants incurred in dealing with former attorney’s misconduct. Trial court also referred the matter to the statewide grievance committee who reprimanded former attorney.  Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that grievance was not res judicata of the sanctions because grievance committee and underlying defendants were not in privity and because trial court awarded sanctions before grievance committee issued reprimand. Appellate Court also concluded that the amount of the sanction – some $60,000 – was not an abuse of discretion.