by Alex Wood

A New York lawyer who charged a disabled woman $10,000 to provide non-professional support in a Connecticut court case — but instead gave her legal advice and prepared court documents for her, despite not being licensed to practice law in Connecticut — has been ordered to return the money.

In an agreed-upon June 12 judgment in state Superior Court in Hartford, lawyer Lowell Sidney, who has offices in New York City and Rockville Centre, N.Y., also was ordered not to practice law in Connecticut or apply for admission to the Connecticut bar for a year from the June 12 order.

In the “presentment” bringing the case to court, Marie-Louise Villar, Connecticut’s assistant chief disciplinary counsel for lawyers, said unauthorized practice of law is a “criminal act” in Connecticut. But online state judicial records list no pending criminal case or conviction for Sidney.

His retainer agreement with the woman called for him to act as an “advocate” for her under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the allegations in the presentment, all of which Sidney admitted, according to Judge Susan Quinn Cobb’s order imposing the sanctions on him.

Under Connecticut judicial branch guidelines, a support person can sit next to a disabled litigant in court to provide emotional or moral support, take notes, organize documents and provide any other help to the litigant as directed by the judge.

A support person is not permitted to give legal advice or perform other functions of a lawyer, such as addressing the judge or questioning witnesses. A lawyer can serve as a support person but only with the judge’s approval. Sidney did not get that approval or even disclose that he was a lawyer and failed to provide the services of a support person, including being in the courtroom, he admitted.

Lawyers in Connecticut are allowed to draft court documents for self-represented litigants, but court rules require that the papers contain a notation indicating that they were prepared that way. The papers Sidney drafted for the woman lacked that notation, he admitted.

Reached by telephone, Sidney declined to comment on the case.

Sidney’s case was one of several in recent months in which judges took disciplinary action against lawyers. Although the Statewide Grievance Committee has authority to reprimand lawyers and take remedial measures, such as requiring a lawyer to take continuing legal education courses, only a judge can suspend or disbar a lawyer. A judge can, however, opt for a reprimand or dismiss the case.

The following lawyers were suspended:

• Joseph C. Barberie, who has practiced in Putnam and New London, was suspended from practicing law for a year on July 17 by Judge Ernest Green in state Superior Court in Putnam for failing to cooperate with Statewide Grievance Committee audits of his clients’ funds accounts.
Barbarie had been suspended on an interim basis since December 2019, the judge wrote.

Barbarie, who is representing himself, could not be reached for comment.

• Alisha Mathers, who has practiced law from her apartments in the Bristol-New Britain area, received two concurrent suspensions from Cobb, on March 31 and another on July 10.

The longest suspension, for nine months, stemmed from a case in which Mathers received $7,000 to represent an incarcerated criminal defendant despite having had her prison visiting privileges revoked, making it difficult for her to communicate with him. Cobb ordered Mathers to repay the $7,000.

The judge imposed a concurrent three-month suspension on Mathers for misconduct that included failing to appear for a hearing in a family case when she was trying to withdraw but remained her client’s “counsel of record.”

In the face of evidence about chaos in Mathers’ law practice and lack of professional boundaries in her relationships with clients, Cobb also ordered her to take courses in management of clients’ funds accounts, office management and client relationships.

Cobb later imposed another concurrent 30-day suspension on Mathers in a case in which she was accused of paying an unannounced visit to a woman who had filed a child-custody action against a man Mathers represented in the case.

The woman said she asked Mathers whether she was an attorney and that Mathers failed to disclose that she was, saying she was just working with the man involved in the custody dispute, according to the presentment filed by Assistant Chief Disciplinary Counsel Karen Oliver Damboise.

Mathers agreed to the concurrent suspension in that case, acknowledging that there was enough evidence to prove the rule violations at issue while still denying some or all of the key allegations.

Mathers’ lawyer, David V. DeRosa, could not be reached for comment.

• Leonard A. McDermott, whose firm is Employee Advocates LLC of Naugatuck, was suspended for 90 days and ordered to repay a total of $6,000 to two former clients on June 30 by Judge W. Glen Pierson in state Superior Court in Waterbury. The judge wrote that the “default judgment” was issued because McDermott had failed to appear for the second day of trial in the case, June 30.

McDermott filed a motion to reargue the suspension, saying he had not received notice of the June 30 hearing. But Brian B. Staines, Connecticut’s chief disciplinary counsel for lawyers, objected, saying notice of the hearing was sent and that McDermott failed to respond to other attempts to contact him, including an email providing him with a proposed version of the discipline order later signed by the judge.

Pierson denied the motion to reargue, online court records show.

Staines is asking the judge to hold McDermott in contempt of court for failing to comply with the conditions of the June 30 order. A “remote hearing” in the case is scheduled for Sept. 25, records show.

The case was based on allegations that McDermott had failed to properly pursue employment discrimination complaints on behalf of three clients and had stopped communicating with them, according to the presentment Staines filed at the beginning of the case.

McDermott, who is representing himself, could not be reached for comment.

• Daniel G. Ruggiero, who has lived and worked mostly in Florida but has a “by appointment only” office in Massachusetts, agreed to a suspension of a year and a day, retroactive to April 14, mirroring action taken against him in Massachusetts, according to a July 10 order by Cobb.

In adopting the year-and-a-day suspension recommended by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Associate Judge Dalila Argaez Wendlandt of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court described multiple areas of misconduct in Ruggiero’s representation of 15 homeowners seeking mortgage relief.

One was that his fee arrangement permitted him to collect fees every month, even if no work was done, according to Wendlandt’s March 15 decision. Another was that Ruggiero failed to communicate with clients and delegated work to unsupervised non-lawyers, ratifying their conduct later, the decision says.

Other violations were sharing fees with non-lawyers and using a firm name indicating that Ruggiero “was part of a legal organization as opposed to a solo practitioner,” the decision says.

Ruggiero could not be reached for comment.

• David W. Parker of the Parker Law Firm in Springfield, Mass., also received discipline mirroring action in Massachusetts, a six-month suspension, stayed for two years and subject to further orders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Patty Jenkins Pittman, a semi-retired judge trial referee, imposed the Connecticut discipline June 20 in state Superior Court in Hartford.

As recounted in a 17-page March 24 decision by Associate Justice Elspeth B. Cypher of the Massachusetts court, Parker had been appointed to represent a child in a “care and protection” case in Holyoke Juvenile Court. A judge had granted temporary custody to the child’s father on conditions that included “ensuring a sober caretaker for the child,” the decision says.

Despite having received documents indicating that the father had a history of alcohol abuse, Parker bought several one-ounce bottles of whiskey for the father on a day when the father was later escorted from a hockey arena while intoxicated, according to the decision.

The rink incident led to the child being removed from the father’s custody, the decision continues.

In explaining her decision to adopt the two-year stay of Parker’s suspension, Cypher explained that it “would provide a great incentive” for Parker “to maintain his sobriety and continue to better himself and his practice.” When the two-year period is up — if the Massachusetts bar counsel’s office agrees — Parker can petition the court for termination of the suspension, Cypher ordered.

Reached for comment, Parker’s lawyer, Laura Greenberg-Chao, said, “Attorney Parker is happy to put the long disciplinary process behind him, and he is proud of his four years of recovery and successful practice of law.”

Full Article & Source:
Lawyers disciplined by CT judges for misconduct ranging from unauthorized practice to not doing job adequately