January 1, 2025
230 Conn. App. 265 (Jan. 2025)
Post disbarment proceedings; motions to intervene; permissive intervention; mootness; subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to rule of practice (§ 2-64).
Consolidated appeals after disbarment:
- Atty disbarred after misconduct in representing a party in a marriage dissolution matter.
- Atty was then to provide trustee with list of all clients and their financial info, billing info, and not to withdraw any funds from all fiduciary accounts.
- Atty did not comply, motion for contempt against her granted
- Disciplinary counsel filed motion to disburse funds (from prior cases where clients hadn’t received settlements)
- Atty filed motion seeking disbursement of her atty’s fees, Ct denied (bc she hasn’t cooperated w process of figuring out what she owes to clients)
- State Farm Insurance interpleaded bc they held money for two former clients that respondent atty also claimed were hers as atty’s fees.
- Former clients also invited to intervene for purpose of claiming the money from State Farm
- First case: order appointing trustee to oversee respondent’s fiduciary accounts after disbarment of respondent in Middlesex.
- Motions to intervene
- Second case: action seeking declaratory judgment as to disbursement of atty’s fees owed to P, brought in Hartford.
- Motion of D State Farm Insurance to transfer action to Middlesex granted
- Court in 1st case ordered trustee to disburse certain funds and rendered judgment, so 2nd case dismissed as moot.
- P filed separate appeals which were consolidated → affirmed in first case, dismissed in second.
- Appealed ordering funds she claimed as atty’s fees be disbursed to her former clients (postdisbarment action).
- 2nd appeal (which was dismissed) is from dismissal on case where she sought declaratory judgment to her representation of former clients → claimed court (1) improperly permitted 3rd parties to intervene in post disbarment action where intervenors lacked standing to involve jurisdiction, and (2) lacked SMJ to resolve claims raised by intervening parties and by a nonparty.
- Respondent’s claim that bc underlying disciplinary proceedings initiated under §51-84 & rule of practice §2-45, that trial court’s jurisdiction was exclusively limited to determining what discipline should be imposed on respondent.
- But trial court under practice rule §2-64 has subject matter jurisdiction over respondent’s client files to protect clients’ interests and unfettered power to act as situations may require to achieve that purpose, including granting permissive intervention to 3rd parties.
- Court has jurisdiction over all funds associated w the winding up of respondent’s practice.
- Former client and State Farm filed motions to intervene in post disbarment, respondent moved to dismiss motions to intervene arguing they lacked standing and court didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent’s motion denied (for reasons above).
- Court eventually ordered trustee to pay former client amt that otherwise would’ve been respondent atty’s fees, and found respondent had no legal right to take money from the settlement proceeds she held in trust for another client & ordered her to pay that balance to that client.
- Cases involving permissive intervention don’t involve standing but whether ct abused its discretion in allowing intervention.
- Should consider: timeliness of intervention, prospective interest in controversy, adequacy of representation of such interests by other parties, delay in proceedings or other prejudice to existing parties, and necessity for intervention in resolving the controversy.
- All considerations show court didn’t abuse discretion in allowing interventions.
- Should consider: timeliness of intervention, prospective interest in controversy, adequacy of representation of such interests by other parties, delay in proceedings or other prejudice to existing parties, and necessity for intervention in resolving the controversy.
- Trial ct didn’t abuse discretion in granting permissive intervention in post disbarment action to 2 former clients & insurance co holding deposited funds, as intervention was timely & likely to expedite resolution of underlying proceedings, and necessary/value of intervention were to resolve intervenors’ fee dispute so court could completely determine the proper distribution of respondent’s funds to protect her former clients.
- Appeal from court’s dismissal of respondent’s declaratory judgment on a portion of those funds now moot, so was dismissed.
