Picard v. Guilford House, LLC
174 A.3d 219
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Underlying wrongful-death suit: plaintiff Picard sued physician Dr. Sawicki and Guilford House defendants for malpractice/independent negligence; Linda Lehmann (appellant) was Picard’s counsel.
- Lehmann took a deposition of Cathleen O’Connor in Maine (Nov 1, 2013); she secretly recorded the deposition (iPhone voice memo) and the deposition was described as unusually contentious.
- Guilford House moved for a protective order, to disqualify Lehmann, and for financial sanctions based on her conduct and the recording; the court ordered production of the recording and then ruled it was not privileged.
- Trial court (Miller, J.) found Lehmann’s conduct sanctionable (scheduling, unfocused questioning, failing to follow deposition rules, unconsented recording), granted sanctions (Apr 3, 2014), forwarded the matter to statewide grievance counsel, and later held an evidentiary hearing on amount of sanctions (Oct 19, 2015).
- On July 14, 2016 the court awarded $60,371.84 in costs and attorneys’ fees against Lehmann (reduced from the defendants’ $72,558.84 claim by excluding certain grievance-defense fees); statewide grievance committee separately reprimanded Lehmann in Feb. 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata / collateral estoppel barred court sanctions because statewide grievance committee already disciplined Lehmann | Lehmann: grievance committee’s reprimand precludes court from imposing financial sanctions (privity with committee) | Defendants: they may recover costs in court; grievance process serves different public-protection function and did not preclude judicial sanctions | Held: No privity; different parties and interests; res judicata/collateral estoppel do not bar sanctions |
| Whether sequencing of proceedings precluded sanctions (committee action came later) | Lehmann: committee discipline already resolved the misconduct issue (argument overlaps with preclusion) | Defendants: trial court acted before committee disposition; its grant of sanctions predated the committee’s reprimand | Held: Trial court granted sanctions before matter was forwarded to committee; later reprimand could not preclude earlier judicial action |
| Whether monetary sanctions were disproportional / punitive (abuse of discretion) | Lehmann: amount and multi-lawyer billing were excessive and punitive | Defendants: fees and costs directly flowed from Lehmann’s misconduct (deposition attendance, travel, transcript, motions, hearings, appeal defense) | Held: No abuse of discretion; court reasonably found sanctions proportional and excluded fees for defense of separate grievance against defendants’ counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 227 Conn. 802 (1993) (grievance proceedings are not adversarial parties and lack privity with civil litigants for preclusion purposes)
- Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225 (2009) (trial court authority to sanction attorney for dilatory, bad-faith, harassing litigation conduct)
- Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 301 Conn. 194 (2011) (privity analysis focuses on functional relationship and identity of legal interests)
- Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73 (2003) (standard for reviewing proportionality of sanctions: abuse of discretion)
- Forster v. Gianopoulous, 105 Conn. App. 702 (2008) (factors for proportionality: severity of sanction, materiality of evidence, willfulness, prejudice)