Moot Court

The Connecticut Appellate Court has held that it lack subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and dismissed a matter as moot

The defendant was placed on interim suspension from the practice of law on January 27, 2021, until further order of the court. On February 24, 2021, Attorney Sergei Lemberg filed an application to become the defendant’s supervising attorney (application) pursuant to Practice Book § 2- 47B. On March 19, 2021, the court heard argument on the threshold issue of whether Practice Book § 2-47B (a) (3) (F) and (b) (1) and (2) (A) and (B) prohibit the defendant from having any communication with clients or third parties regarding matters that are the subject of representation by the supervising attorney or his or her firm.

Proceedings below

By order dated May 27, 2021, the court approved both applications and thereby appointed Lemberg and Dubois to serve as supervising attorneys for the defendant. The plaintiff filed this appeal on June 7, 2021.

Following the commencement of this appeal, both supervising attorneys, on July 18, 2022, filed a motion to terminate the supervising attorney relationship with the defendant. On November 22, 2022, the trial court granted the motion. In light of this development, this court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot. In their briefs, both parties argue that this case should not be dismissed as moot because the issues raised by the plaintiff qualify for the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine.

The court here

We conclude that the plaintiff’s appeal is moot because no practical relief can be afforded to the plaintiff. As the facts currently stand, the defendant is neither being supervised remotely nor is he employed as a paralegal with the ability to communicate with clients or third parties. Therefore, there exists no live controversy, and the plaintiff’s appeal is moot.

…we conclude that the controversy between the parties does not fall within the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(Mike Frisch)