198 Conn.App. 767
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- In 2012 Rozbicki (an attorney) was retained to defend Laser and Laser Building Co. in Frey v. Noorani; during that representation Laser later contacted insurer NGM and NGM engaged substitute counsel who obtained a settlement.
- Rozbicki sued Laser for unpaid legal fees (collection action). Laser retained Sconyers/Ackerly Brown to defend the collection action.
- The Laser defendants (through Sconyers) asserted two special defenses (excessive/unreasonable fees) and filed a malpractice counterclaim alleging Rozbicki failed to investigate or advise about duty-to-defend insurance coverage.
- The parties settled the collection action and the counterclaim was withdrawn. Rozbicki then sued the Laser defendants and Sconyers for vexatious litigation under common law and § 52-568.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal the court reversed as to Laser (genuine factual disputes) and affirmed as to Sconyers (Sconyers had probable cause and reasonable investigation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for Laser to assert special defenses and file malpractice counterclaim | Laser knew at retention (June 2012) that insurer would defend, so claims premised on Rozbicki's failure to advise lack probable cause | Laser lacked that knowledge; Rozbicki failed to advise; malpractice claim reasonably based on facts known to counsel | Reversed as to Laser: genuine issue of material fact whether Laser knew insurance was available, so summary judgment improper |
| Whether Laser reasonably relied on Sconyers' advice (advice-of-counsel defense) | Laser gave incomplete/false facts to Sconyers, so cannot invoke advice-of-counsel | Laser provided full facts to Sconyers and relied in good faith on counsel's advice | Reversed as to Laser: factual dispute whether Laser disclosed all material facts; summary judgment improper |
| Probable cause for Sconyers to file the malpractice counterclaim and defenses | Sconyers failed to investigate (no expert, did not contact insurer), lacked malpractice experience, so no probable cause | Sconyers reasonably relied on client statements, interviewed witnesses, consulted other attorneys and researched; investigation was adequate | Affirmed as to Sconyers: reasonable attorney familiar with CT law could have believed probable cause existed; summary judgment for Sconyers proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutter v. Janis, 334 Conn. 722 (2020) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (2007) (probable cause standard for attorneys — objective reasonable-attorney test)
- Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn. App. 262 (2009) (discussing Falls Church and probable-cause inquiry for counsel)
- Rogan v. Rungee, 165 Conn. App. 209 (2016) (advice-of-counsel defense requires full and fair disclosure of material facts)
- Costello & McCormack, P.C. v. Manero, 194 Conn. App. 417 (2019) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- Bhatia v. Debek, 287 Conn. 397 (2008) (relationship between malicious prosecution and vexatious litigation causes of action)