Endless Journey Ends

The Connecticut Appellate Court declined to consider a sanction challenge not raised below

Here, the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record provides clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lombardi retained the plaintiff to represent both her and her business, which is a limited liability company. The plaintiff, however, failed to inquire into the legal status of Lombardi’s business and, instead, assumed that Lombardi was doing business as a trade name, and, therefore, he did not include the business as a party to the litigation.

Findings below

The reviewing committee found that, although ‘‘[v]arious documents and letters from the [Internal Revenue Service] that were submitted into evidence were addressed to Lombardi Roberts Travel, Inc., d/b/a Endless Journeys,’’ only ‘‘[t]wo documents in evidence . . . referenced [Lombardi] in her individual capacity,’’ thereby indicating that Lombardi’s business was a separate legal entity. Thus, because the plaintiff failed to name Lombardi’s business as a party, the court that heard the underlying civil action, which found that the business sustained $2369.22 in economic damages, was unable to award those damages to Lombardi in her individual capacity.

Conclusion here

Had the plaintiff adequately prepared for litigation, as required by rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, he would have learned that the business is an entity that had to be named as a party for the court to award the economic damages sought. The fact that another attorney, rather than the plaintiff, represented Lombardi and her business at trial does not absolve the plaintiff of his earlier incompetence in filing the complaint without adequate preparation. On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the record fully supports the reviewing committee’s finding that, by clear and convincing evidence, the plaintiff had violated rule 1.1.

Contention that he should not have been ordered to complete three CLE hours

On the basis of our review of the record, it is clear that the plaintiff is raising this claim for the first time in this appeal. The plaintiff, however, fails to assert any arguments or facts demonstrating exceptional circumstances that would justify review of this unpreserved claim. Accordingly, we decline to review the merits of this claim.

(Mike Frisch)