“[W]ould You Like Me To Bow?”

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a disbarment order issued by a family trial docket presiding judge for alleged misconduct in a dissolution action

The primary issue in this writ of error challenging the disbarment of an attorney is whether her due process rights were violated by the procedure used by the first defendant in error, Hon. Thomas G. Moukawsher. The plaintiff in error, Nickola J. Cunha, who is the former attorney for a party in the underlying dissolution action, challenges in this writ of error the order of Judge Moukawsher disbarring her from the practice of law. Cunha claims that Judge Moukawsher (1) violated her constitutional right to due process by failing to give her adequate notice of a disciplinary hearing and by deciding that misconduct had occurred without an independent hearing on the issue, (2) violated her first amendment right to free speech by disbarring her for the arguments she made in connection with a motion to disqualify, (3) erred in finding that she had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct because those findings were not factually supported by clear and convincing evidence and (4) imposed an excessive penalty by disbarring her from the practice
of law. We conclude that no constitutional violation occurred, the findings of violations of Rules of Professional Conduct were supported by clear and convincing evidence and there was no abuse of discretion in ordering Cunha disbarred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The attorney had sought disqualification of the judge in a divorce proceeding

At that hearing, Judge Moukawsher asked Cunha to indicate specific parts of the transcripts of the dissolution proceedings that explained her claims of bias. Cunha stated that the record in its totality would show that Judge Adelman was biased against women who claim abuse, individuals with disabilities, and anyone not of the Jewish faith. In support of these claims, she provided only examples of Judge Adelman’s rulings adverse to her client. Judge Moukawsher repeatedly requested that Cunha provide evidence to support her claims of bias rather than simply relying on the issuance of adverse rulings and stated at one point, ‘‘You’re a lawyer. You know I need to have evidence. You can’t just assert things.’’ Judge Moukawsher further stated at one point that, ‘‘it can’t be just simply you don’t like his rulings . .

The judge then scheduled a sanctions hearing and invited disciplinary authorities to participate where the attorney stated

Cunha further stated that the disqualification ruling ‘‘is a joke, and it is pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself for subjecting myself to that type of rhetoric. Frankly, Judge, I am ashamed to even be sitting before you with the type of conduct that you engaged in. You have engaged in material misrepresentation; you have lied to the public. You have done so solely to put me in a poor light . . . .’’ 

When she persisted

Judge Moukawsher asked Cunha to ‘‘stop speaking,’’ at which point Cunha stated, ‘‘I will obey, Your Honor, would you like me to bow’’; Judge Moukawsher responded that Cunha was ‘‘bounding criminal contempt of court’’ because she was ‘‘abusing the court’’ and ‘‘not providing any useful information.’’ The disciplinary counsel addressed Judge Moukawsher, listing in detail the rule violations and misconduct the evidence supported for a sanction of disbarment.

An order followed

On January 25, 2022, Judge Moukawsher issued a memorandum of decision disbarring Cunha from the practice of law on the basis that she violated rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 8.2, 8.4 (3) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (disciplinary order). In so doing, Judge Moukawsher stated that ‘‘[d]isbarment is the appropriate penalty for conduct as egregious as Ms. Cunha’s’’ and noted that her conduct ‘‘not only involved a fraud on the court, but a scurrilous assault on the integrity of a judge. The offense was aggravated by its context and by Ms. Cunha’s behavior at the hearing on potential punishment’’ wherein ‘‘she mocked and disregarded the court’s authority. She will not be given a chance to do it again.’’ Judge Moukawsher ordered Cunha permanently disbarred unless reinstated.

The court here

we conclude that Cunha cannot prevail on her due process claims that, regarding the disciplinary hearing, Judge Moukawsher failed to give her adequate notice and improperly limited that hearing to the issue of sanctions. We find no such violations of due process.

And

Cunha cannot prevail on the arguments she presents to this court implicating the first amendment

The court rejected the suggestion that the various ethics rule violations were not proven

we conclude that the court’s findings of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Sanction

the disciplinary order demonstrates a careful consideration of the nature of the misconduct in light of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, we defer to Judge Moukawsher’s determination of the appropriate sanction. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Serafinowicz, 160 Conn. App. 92, 102, 123 A.3d 1279, cert. denied, 319 Conn. 953, 125 A.3d 531 (2015). On the basis of our review of the record, we cannot conclude that Judge Moukawsher’s sanction of disbarment was an abuse of his discretion.

A federal court complaint filed by the attorney against the judge was recently dismissed.

The underlying domestic case has generated an extraordinary amount of publicity and controversy.

This post by Connecticut Inside Investigator provides information about the litigation.

Although my knowledge of this situation is limited, as a former bar prosecutor I find the sanction of disbarment grossly excessive for the misconduct found. (Mike Frisch)