Writer’s Block

Summary judgment in favor of an attorney defendant has been affirmed by the Connecticut Appellate Court

In June, 2012, Allyson Forsythe, the sole owner and president of the Writers’ Workshop (Workshop), a company that represents published authors, hired the defendant to represent the Workshop as its attorney in an effort to seek restitution from Jake Elwell, the plaintiff’s then husband. Elwell was employed as a literary agent for the Workshop between May, 1998, and sometime prior to June, 2012, and was responsible for, inter alia, collecting from various publishers royalties that were owed to the Workshop. Forsythe hired the defendant to seek restitution from Elwell in the amount of $220,000, which Elwell allegedly embezzled during the course of his employment with the Workshop.

This action involved a claim of vexatious litigation against the former attorney under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA)

we conclude that the plaintiff failed to plead a viable CUTPA claim because she did not allege that the defendant engaged in deceptive acts or practices concerning the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of law. In support of count three of her complaint asserting a violation of CUTPA, the plaintiff first alleged that the defendant ‘‘advertises to clients that he specializes in recovering debts,’’ but she did not allege that such advertisement was deceptive or that it related in some other way to the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of law. The plaintiff next alleged that the defendant ‘‘used false and misleading information and unethical practices,’’ which suggests only that the defendant engaged in specific professional conduct over the course of his representation of the Workshop and which does not concern the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of law. See Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48, 79, 717 A.2d 724 (1998) (attorney professional conduct in context of client representation ‘‘does not fall under CUTPA’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

An opinion in the underlying mortgage foreclosure litigation from the Connecticut Superior Court is linked here. (Mike Frisch)