160 Conn.App. 92
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Robert Serafinowicz, a Connecticut criminal defense attorney (admitted 2004), filed a Judicial Review Council complaint against Judge Burton Kaplan and a subsequent motion to recuse in a high‑profile school narcotics case. The complaint was returned as incomplete and not processed. Serafinowicz did not withdraw or amend the recusal motion.
- After appearing before Judge Kaplan multiple times, Serafinowicz gave a videotaped press statement sharply criticizing the judge’s integrity and competence, asserting favoritism and other factual allegations. Discipline was later initiated based on those public statements.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) (false or recklessly false statements about a judge) and 8.4(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Serafinowicz tendered an admission of misconduct (without proposed disposition) conceding there was sufficient evidence to prove the rule violations.
- The Superior Court (Waterbury) held a sanction hearing, received mitigation evidence (character letters and witness testimony), accepted allocution and remorse, and imposed a 120‑day suspension plus mandatory ethics CLE. Disciplinary Counsel sought a five‑year suspension.
- On appeal Serafinowicz argued (1) the 120‑day suspension was an abuse of discretion because the court misweighed aggravating/mitigating factors and compared unfavorably to other cases, and (2) his statements were protected by the First Amendment. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Counsel's Argument | Serafinowicz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 120‑day suspension was an abuse of discretion | Suspension appropriate to protect judiciary and public respect; aggravating factors supported | Court abused discretion: overstated aggravation, undervalued mitigation, penalty excessive compared to analogous cases | No abuse: court reasonably weighed factors, found pattern/dishonest motive, considered mitigation, sanction individualized and not arbitrary |
| Whether appellate review should overturn sanction based on comparative cases | Comparison to other cases insufficient to overturn individualized sanction | Relied on lesser punishments in other cases to show excessiveness | Rejected: sanctions must be tailored; deference to trial court absent manifest arbitrariness |
| Whether statements were constitutionally protected speech | Public criticism of judges can be regulated when knowingly false or made with reckless disregard | Claimed First Amendment protection for his public statements | Waived on appeal: defendant admitted misconduct at trial and did not raise a constitutional claim, so appellate review barred |
| Whether admission of misconduct forecloses constitutional claim | Enforcement appropriate after admission under Practice Book §2‑82(c) | N/A (argued on appeal only) | Admission and failure to assert constitutional defense below waived First Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki, 150 Conn. App. 472 (Conn. App. 2014) (discussing court authority to regulate attorney conduct)
- Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1883) (disciplinary proceedings protect courts from persons unfit to practice)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, 88 Conn. App. 523 (Conn. App. 2005) (purpose of discipline to safeguard administration of justice)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Egbarin, 61 Conn. App. 445 (Conn. App. 2001) (standard of review for disciplinary sanctions)
- Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (factors to consider after finding misconduct)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Fountain, 56 Conn. App. 375 (Conn. App. 2000) (use of ABA standards in sanctioning lawyers)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer, 247 Conn. 762 (Conn. 1999) (deference to trial court on discipline absent arbitrariness)
- Dockter v. Slowik, 91 Conn. App. 448 (Conn. App. 2006) (party may not adopt one trial course then assert a different claim on appeal)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 80 Conn. App. 436 (Conn. App. 2003) (relinquishment of appellate constitutional claim when abandoned at trial)