Brady And Bar Discipline

The Connecticut Appellate Court has affirmed the dismissal of an action brought by an attorney against disciplinary counsel.

The attorney was suspended as a result of the bar case and had sought a new trial.

The issues

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly determined that, as a matter of law, the petitioner was not entitled to a new trial because (1) there was no newly discovered evidence upon which the petitioner could base his claim; (2) the trial court did not render its judgment on the basis of fraud; and (3) the petitioner’s right to due process of law had not been violated. The petitioner also argues that should a new trial be ordered, he is entitled to vacatur of several Superior Court and Appellate Court judgments related to this action that previously were rendered against him.

Reasoning

The gist of the petitioner’s claim is that the hearing was unfair because the respondent effectively suppressed evidence of the September 29, 2006 appraisal. Although we conclude that Brady does not apply in the present case, Brady nonetheless provides some guidance in our evaluation of the due process claim raised by the petitioner…

The court concluded that, even if the Brady doctrine applied, there was no showing of a violation. (Mike Frisch)