Destroy-It!

The Connecticut Appellate Court has denied reinstatement to a Petitioner disbarred in the wake of a partially-reversed federal conviction.

The Second Circuit ordered a new trial on the racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud charges on the ground that the government unconstitutionally suppressed material exculpatory and impeaching evidence. Id., 165. The Second Circuit did not order a new trial on the obstruction of justice charges, stating that, [e]ven if the suppressed notes had an impeaching effect so strong as to call into question  Silvester’s testimony on other matters, the government’s evidence of [the defendant’s] obstruction of justice was overwhelming. In light of the forensic examiner’s detailed testimony regarding the suspicious timing of the deletion of relevant files from [the defendant’s] laptop using Destroy-It! software, and its corroboration with [Robert] Trevisani’s testimony about [the defendant’s] mention of Destroy-It! as software to be used in order to hide something . . . we do not think that the suppression of [Special] Agent [Charles E.] Urso’s notes raises a reasonable probability that the verdict on the obstruction of justice count would have been different. . . . Id., 165 n.13.

The Second Circuit opinion is linked here.

His 2017 application for reinstatement was referred to the Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar for New Haven County (committee)

Before the committee, the defendant also stated affirmatively that he believed that he was innocent of any wrongdoing and that he had not committed the crime of obstruction of justice, even though his conviction on that charge had been affirmed on appeal.

The committee found that his “blatant refus[al]” to acknowledge wrongdoing merited rejection.

On review

On June 1, 2021, an evidentiary hearing was held before a three judge panel of the Superior Court to determine whether to accept or reject the committee’s recommendation that the defendant’s application for reinstatement be denied.

The superior court was unanimous in denying reinstatement.

Before the Appellate Court

The defendant first claims that the court improperly accepted the report by the committee because the committee exceeded the scope of its investigative authority by inquiring as to the defendant’s presuspension misconduct. Specifically, the defendant argues that the committee’s inquiry into his actions that served as the basis for his racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, and bribery convictions, and the conclusions it drew from his refusal to answer questions about those actions, were improper because those convictions were reversed by the Second Circuit and the scope of the committee’s investigation does not include alleged but unajudicated misconduct. We disagree.

Because

it is clear that a committee’s consideration of an applicant’s present good moral character is an expansive inquiry. The committee may consider the applicant’s conduct prior to or after his or her suspension, regardless of whether that conduct served as the basis for his or her suspension. The committee may also consider all conduct in determining the applicant’s present fitness.

The claim of innocence

In the present case, the defendant argues that he did not need to accept his established conviction with sincerity and honesty because he proved his claim of innocence to the committee. This argument only further exhibits the defendant’s confusion with the reinstatement process, particularly, his belief that his claim of innocence presupposes that all other criteria from Ganim are met, which is simply not what the committee found. The committee was not investigating or recommending guilt or innocence; instead, the committee was charged with determining whether the defendant had been rehabilitated, as well as whether he possessed good moral character and the requisite fitness to practice law, which must all be ‘‘viewed against the backdrop of the defendant’s misconduct and the disrepute it brought’’ to both the defendant and the legal profession. Id., 462.

The underlying criminal case was reported by the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Connecticut

According to the evidence presented during a trial in this matter, SPADONI was the general counsel of Triumph Capital Group Inc. (“Triumph Capital”). In November 1998, shortly after former Connecticut State Treasurer Paul J. Silvester had lost his bid for re-election, SPADONI, Silvester and others engaged in a scheme through which two of Silvester’s close associates received from Triumph Capital sham “consulting contracts” worth $1 million each in return for the investment of $200 million of state pension assets in a Triumph Capital-related investment fund, Triumph Connecticut-II.

In 1999, federal investigators began looking into investments that Silvester had handled at the end of his term as treasurer. After a federal grand jury subpoena was served on a Triumph-related fund looking for documents related to the Connecticut investment, SPADONI used a file-erasing program called Destroy-It! and began to delete computer files to prevent them from being obtained by subsequent grand jury subpoenas. SPADONI continued to use Destroy-It! as Triumph Capital employees were called before the grand jury and additional subpoenas were issued.

 On July 16, 2003, a federal jury convicted SPADONI for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, RICO conspiracy, bribery, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice. On October 25, 2006, Judge Burns sentenced SPADONI to 36 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release and a $50,000 fine. SPADONI appealed his conviction and, on September 25, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction on the obstruction of justice count, but ordered a new trial on the remaining counts of conviction. The government will not retry SPADONI on the remaining counts of conviction.

The more charitable (if that is the correct description) District of Columbia Court of Appeals readmitted a disbarred attorney notwithstanding his continuing claim of innocence.

He had been convicted of attempted malicious wounding 

The jury heard evidence that Mr. Sabo cut the brake lines of a vehicle owned by his former girlfriend, Heather Nicole Lawrence, days after she ended their relationship. When Ms. Lawrence next drove her vehicle, she lost control and hit a fence, a low brick wall, and a tree. No one sustained injury.

Judge Steadman dissented. (Mike Frisch)