CT Supreme Court Protects Lawyer Using Creative Interpretation
CT Supreme Court Protects Lawyer Using Creative Interpretation
CT Supreme Court Protects Lawyer Using Creative Interpretation
LAURENCE PARNOFF
(SC 19535)
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarena, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and
Robinson, Js.*
appeant (Plainti).
We disagree.
(Emphasis added.)
Robiuson were not present at oral argument, they have read the briefs and
there has been a fiI-dmg by a judge of the superior court that a lawyer has
Although Practice Book 247Ahas been amended since the events under-
years,, after the word =disbament,, that anendment has no bearing on the
merits of this appeal. h the interest of simpliciall references to Practice
Book 247A in this opinion are to the version appeang in the 2016 Practice
Book. See DcCsev.mQ158 Com. App. 454, 463 n.2,
119 A.3d 621 (2015).
2 General Statutes 52-251c (b) provides in relevant part: In [a] contih-
one-td per cent of the first three hundred thousand douars; (2) twenty-
five per cent of the next three hundred thousand dollars; (3) twenty per
cent of the nextuee hundred thousand dollars; (4)een per cent of the
next three hundred thousand dollars; and (5) ten per cent of any anoLt
Authough 52-25lc has been anended since the events undeying this
appedy see, e.gPublic Acts 2005, No. 05-275, 1; those anendments have
no bearing on the merits of this appeal. In the mterest of simplicilWe
the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer unthe dispute is resoived.
The lawyer sha11 promptly distribute a11 portions of the property as to which
the interests are not in dispute.
All references herein to rule l.15 (f) are to the version set foh in the
defendant] would need to resoIve matters with Mooney and that she would
then be willing to give the defendant] his fee; She also testified, When asked
if she was at theial to help Mooney, that she was also trying to get her
tha,t the defendant did not demonsate any lack of integrity, and did not
act with any intent to deceive Yuille. To the extent tha=he plainmay
Wesaee.
7The 2007 commery to Practice Book 247A provides in relevant
[supra, 81 N.J. 451], the New Jersey Sxpreme Court aculated a ne that
the universal response m cases of krOWing misappropriation of clients