225 Conn.App. 552
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs (family members of Sandy Hook victims and others) sued Alex Jones and related entities; the court entered a protective order designating medical and other sensitive materials as Highly Confidential—Attorneys Eyes Only and limiting access to counsel of record.
- Norman A. Pattis was counsel for several defendants; discovery (over 390,000 pages, including ~4,000 medical pages) was produced under the protective order.
- Pattis and his firm transmitted a hard drive of Connecticut discovery (not marked confidential) to out-of-state counsel (Lee, then Reynal) who were not counsel of record in the Connecticut cases; those materials ultimately reached Texas counsel (Bankston) by inadvertent production.
- The trial judge issued a sua sponte show‑cause order, held hearings, found by clear and convincing evidence that Pattis violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, and suspended him for six months.
- On writ of error, the appellate court upheld the court’s authority to proceed and its denial of disqualification but concluded certain rule violations were not supported and remanded for a new sanctions hearing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did initiating sua sponte disciplinary proceedings based on out‑of‑court conduct violate due process? | Pattis: court exceeded authority; due process requires referral and private investigation for out‑of‑court conduct. | Court/Disciplinary counsel: Superior Court has inherent authority; Mathews balancing permits prompt court proceedings. | No due process violation; court may initiate disciplinary proceedings for out‑of‑court conduct after Mathews balancing. |
| 2) Should Judge Bellis have been disqualified? | Pattis: her statements about prior grievance and decision to preside create reasonable appearance of partiality. | Judge: recitation was transparency and accommodation; no actual bias shown. | Denial of disqualification affirmed; no reasonable basis to question impartiality. |
| 3) Did Pattis violate specific Rules of Professional Conduct (1.1; 1.15(b); 3.4(3); 5.1(b)/(c); 8.4(4))? | Pattis: some rules inapplicable (e.g., 1.15(b)); others lack clear and convincing proof of knowing misconduct or supervisory liability. | Court: mishandling and dissemination of protected records showed incompetence, supervisory lapses, and prejudice to administration of justice. | Affirmed violations: 1.1, 5.1(b), 8.4(4). Reversed/vacated findings: 1.15(b) (does not cover discovery materials), 3.4(3) (no clear & convincing proof of knowing disobedience), and 5.1(c) as to Reynal (insufficient evidence of knowledge/ratification). |
| 4) Were the sanctions (six‑month suspension) proper? | Pattis: sanction arbitrary/disproportionate. | Court: sanction based on overall misconduct findings. | Vacated sanction and remanded for new sanctions hearing before a different judge because several rule findings were vacated and the suspension was not tied to particular, valid findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing test for procedural protections)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standards for raising unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
- Burton v. Mottolese, 267 Conn. 1 (2003) (attorney license is a property interest; courts may discipline attorneys)
- State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572 (2007) (recusal under due process requires actual bias to invoke plenary review)
- Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 277 Conn. 218 (2006) (scope and purpose of Rule 8.4(4): conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Cohen v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 339 Conn. 503 (2021) (interpretive approach to Rules of Professional Conduct and commentary)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971) (recusal where judge is personally embroiled and fair adjudication is compromised)