Disciplinary Counsel Proper Party In Appeal By Alex Jones Attorney

The Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the writ of error against the judge who had suspended Alex Jones’s attorney but declined to dismiss with respect to Disciplinary Counsel.

The appeal challenges the suspension order, which is presently stayed

This writ of error was commenced by the plaintiff in error, Norman A. Pattis—a Connecticut attorney and counsel of record for the defendants, Alex Emric Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, in the underlying consolidated tort actions arising out of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The plaintiff in error challenges the order of the second defendant in error, Honorable Barbara N. Bellis, suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

As to Disciplinary Counsel

 disciplinary counsel has not cited any authority, and we are not aware of any, to support the proposition that he is a misjoined party in a disciplinary proceeding, even if initiated by a trial court, particularly when he participated without objection and was responsible for its prosecution.

Thus

In our view, disciplinary counsel, by virtue of his active participation in the underlying proceedings and his institutional role and powers set forth in Practice Book § 2-34A (b), is the party perhaps most well suited to participate in this writ of error and to defend the propriety of Judge Bellis’ order suspending Pattis from the practice of law. Indeed, the underlying disciplinary procedures invoked by the trial court are akin to an attorney presentment proceeding, which disciplinary counsel routinely initiates and prosecutes.

Writ of error

In the present case, the writ of error was served on Judge Bellis on January 31, 2023, which is fewer than ten days from the February 7, 2023 return day. The record also demonstrates that Judge Bellis filed her motion to dismiss on February 10, 2023, nine days after her attorney filed an appearance on February 1, 2023. Accordingly, because process was not served in a timely manner upon Judge Bellis, who filed a timely motion to dismiss, we grant Judge Bellis’ motion to dismiss the writ of error for lack of proper service of process.  See Chevalier v. Wakefield, 85 Conn. 374, 375, 82 A. 973 (1912) (when writ of error is not ‘‘served and returned within the prescribed period before its return day,’’ writ ‘‘must fail as any other action must’’). The motion to dismiss filed by disciplinary counsel is denied; the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Bellis is granted and the writ of error as it pertains to Judge Bellis is dismissed.

(Mike Frisch)