Judge orders suspension for 'one of these lawyers' who use 'bombast' and 'practice close to or over the line'
A Connecticut lawyer is in ethics trouble again after she was disbarred for “empty and malicious claims” that a judge favored Jewish litigants and protected the sexual abuse of children. (Image from Shutterstock)
A Connecticut lawyer is in ethics trouble again after she was disbarred for “empty and malicious claims” that a judge favored Jewish litigants and protected the sexual abuse of children.
Lawyer Nickola J. Cunha of Connecticut must serve a 30-month suspension, partly for claiming that a guardian ad litem conspired with another lawyer to request a status conference to increase legal bills in violation of the “RICO Act.” (In a footnote, Abrams wrote that: “One is left to assume that the respondent was referring to … the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.”)
The Legal Profession Blog has highlights of the Oct. 10 suspension order by Senior Judge James W. Abrams of the superior court for the New Haven Judicial District in Connecticut.
“Even if there were a shred of evidentiary basis” for Cunha’s claims about the guardian ad litem, “which there is not, even a first-year law student would recognize that under no conceivable circumstances would RICO apply to a request of a status conference in a state court family case,” Abrams said.
The suspension begins at the end of a disbarment period formerly imposed for Cunha’s claims about the judge, according to the decision. Abrams did not say how long the disbarment lasts, but a lawyer lookup page said Cunha can apply for reinstatement after five years.
The new disciplinary case largely stems from Cunha’s actions before the disbarment. Her behavior led Abrams to reflect on attorney tactics in days gone by.
“Not all that long ago, bombast and outright aggression were regularly employed by certain well-known members of the bar in an attempt to gain an advantage through intimidation, both of opposing lawyers and their clients,” Abrams wrote. “While most of the notable practitioners of this approach have since gone to their great reward, the legal profession still does not want for people who practice close to or over the line. In this case, the evidence before the court certainly gives rise to the conclusion that [Cunha] was one of these lawyers.”
Abrams went on to evaluate whether Cunha’s behavior crossed the line and found ethics violations stemming from three cases. Cunha “violated a myriad of duties,” Abrams concluded. Suspension periods for each case should run consecutively, Abrams determined.
Cunha’s RICO claim merited a six-month suspension, Abrams said. A second case in which Cunha falsely stated that there were no pending orders in effect deserves a one-year suspension, Abrams said.
A third case in which Cunha failed to communicate with and protect the interests of a client deserve another one-year suspension, Abrams said. The client hired another lawyer, but Cunha didn’t refund the unused portion of the retainer or provide an accounting, according to Abrams.
Cunha had attributed her failures to the pressures of work. Abrams said Cunha should have reacted differently, however.
“Experience tells us that the pressures of life challenge many people, lawyers included, and can often interfere with one’s ability to meet professional responsibilities,” Abrams said. “It is at that precise point where lawyers are under an obligation to communicate candidly with those affected by their inability to meet their obligations. However, the record reveals that the respondent did the exact opposite; when she became overwhelmed, she refused to communicate, ignoring the needs of others.”
Cunha also made a threatening communication in an email to the disciplinary counsel regarding the case, according to Abrams.
“God willing your end, along with the rest of the professionals that violate everyone’s rights on a daily basis is creeping up on you,” the email said.
Online information for Cunha lists her law office number. It was not in service when the ABA Journal called for comment. Lawyer disciplinary officials did not immediately respond to a request for contact information.
