Summary
This consolidated Connecticut appellate decision addresses a disbarred attorney's appeals from a trial court order disbursing her fiduciary and IOLTA account funds to former clients and permitting third-party intervention to resolve a dispute over attorney's fees. The court held that the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction under Practice Book § 2-64 and its inherent authority to protect client interests, including the power to grant permissive intervention to former clients and an insurance company holding disputed funds. Consequently, the court affirmed the disbursement order and dismissed the related declaratory judgment appeal as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to permit permissive intervention of third parties in the post‑disbarment proceeding.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting such permissive intervention.
- Whether the trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to resolve the fee‑dispute claims of former clients and to order disbursement of the funds.
Holdings
- The court had subject‑matter jurisdiction under Practice Book § 2‑64 and its inherent authority to permit permissive intervention to protect the interests of the respondent’s clients.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the intervention was timely, the intervenors had a clear interest, and the intervention expedited resolution of the underlying dispute.
- The court possessed subject‑matter jurisdiction over the fee‑dispute claims because Practice Book § 2‑64 confers jurisdiction over the respondent’s client funds and the court’s inherent power allows it to adjudicate related disputes.
Key quotations
“Contrary to the respondent’s claim that, because the underlying disciplinary proceedings against her were initiated pursuant to statute (§ 51‑84) and the rule of practice (§ 2‑45), the trial court’s jurisdiction was exclusively limited to determining what discipline should be imposed on the respondent, the trial court, pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 2‑64) and its inherent authority, had subject matter jurisdiction over the respondent’s client files for the purpose of protecting the interests of her clients and unfettered power to act as situations may seem to require to achieve that purpose, including granting permissive intervention to third parties.” (at 1)
Factual background
Nickola J. Cunha was disbarred on Jan. 25, 2022. The trial court appointed a trustee to inventory her client files and protect client interests under Practice Book § 2‑64. The trustee discovered undistributed settlement funds and the court ordered the trustee to disburse amounts to former clients (including John and Lie Skura and Paula Moen) and to address disputed attorney‑fee claims. The respondent sought to block third‑party permissive intervention and argued the court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the fee disputes.
Procedural history
The trial court in the Middlesex district appointed a trustee to wind up the respondent’s fiduciary accounts after her disbarment and granted permissive intervention to two former clients and State Farm. The court later ordered disbursement of funds to the former clients and dismissed the respondent’s declaratory‑judgment action as moot. The appellant appealed the disbursement order (affirmed) and the dismissal (dismissed as moot).