230 Conn.App. 265
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background:
- Nickola J. Cunha was disbarred from practicing law for misconduct related to her representation in a marriage dissolution case.
- After disbarment, a trustee was appointed to manage Cunha’s fiduciary accounts and client files to protect her former clients’ interests.
- Disputes arose over attorney’s fees regarding funds held after settlements of cases Cunha previously handled, particularly concerning John and Lie Tjun Lim Skura and Paula Moen, former clients.
- The trustee sought court guidance regarding distribution of disputed funds, and third parties (the Skuras and State Farm Insurance, which held settlement money) moved to intervene in the proceedings.
- Cunha contested the court’s jurisdiction to allow third-party intervention and to adjudicate the fee disputes, also filing her own declaratory judgment action seeking the funds.
- The court ordered disbursement of the disputed funds to Cunha’s former clients, leading to her appeals on jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
Issues:
| Issue | Cunha’s Argument | Skuras/State Farm’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive intervention of third parties | Only discipline of attorney at issue; intervenors lacked standing | Timely intervention as they held or claimed funds; necessary to resolve disputes | Court had discretion under Practice Book § 2-64 to allow permissive intervention; did not abuse discretion |
| Subject matter jurisdiction over fee disputes | Statutory and rule-based limits; court cannot decide disputes between ex-clients and attorney | Court has jurisdiction under its inherent authority and rules to protect client interests and distribute disputed funds | Court had subject matter jurisdiction based on its inherent authority and Practice Book § 2-64 |
| Disposition of funds held by State Farm | Claimed entitlement to attorney's fees withheld from settlements | Claimed respondent forfeited right to fees due to misconduct; insurer sought legal directive | Funds properly disbursed to former client (Skura) instead of Cunha |
| Mootness of declaratory judgment appeal | Not moot—underlying right to fee remains justiciable | Action moot after funds released under court order | Appeal dismissed as moot due to the funds already being disbursed |
Key Cases Cited
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232 (Conn. 1989) (describes disciplinary proceedings as sui generis with broad court power to protect clients and public)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey, 328 Conn. 688 (Conn. 2018) (court has exclusive, inherent authority over attorney discipline proceedings)
- BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2010) (distinguishes between permissive and right-of-intervention; sets standards for permissive intervention)
- Austin-Casares v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 640 (Conn. 2013) (lists factors for court consideration in granting permissive intervention)
- Connor v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 260 Conn. 435 (Conn. 2002) (sets standards for subject matter jurisdiction; instructs courts to presume jurisdiction if possible)