Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora
| Decision Date | 17 April 2001 |
| Citation | 62 Conn.App. 828,772 A.2d 681 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | (Conn.App 2001) STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. KAREN ZADORA ET AL. AC 20185 |
Samuel B. Feldman, for the appellants (defendants).
Maureen A. Horgan, assistant bar counsel, for the appellee (plaintiff).
OPINION
The defendants, Karen Zadora and Richard Forsey, appeal from the judgment of the trial court holding them in contempt of court. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly held that (1) the plaintiff had met its burden of proof concerning the defendants' noncompliance with an existing court order and (2) the defendants were in contempt of court and in violation of the terms of an existing injunction. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our consideration of the defendants' appeal. The plaintiff statewide grievance committee filed a complaint against the defendants, who were doing business as Divorce Documentation Service of Connecticut, also known as The Documentation Company, charging them with the unauthorized practice of law. The defendants do not dispute the fact that they are not attorneys. The complaint alleged that the defendants' business, which claims that it offers only typing and forms for dissolution actions, actually offers legal advice to its customers.
In 1991, Zadora began a business known as the Legal Documentation Company. In December, 1991, the plaintiff initiated an investigation to determine whether this company was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. After a hearing in April, 1992, at which only Zadora testified, the plaintiff concluded that Zadora's services consisted only of typing legal forms for divorces, leases, real estate sales and commercial transactions as directed by the customer and that that type of clerical service did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
Sometime in late 1992, Forsey, who is Zadora's father, joined the business. In 1993, the plaintiff initiated another investigation of the defendants because it had received a business card of the Legal Documentation Company that contained the names of both Zadora and Forsey. In 1994, the plaintiff again concluded that the defendants had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
On April 29, 1998, the plaintiff commenced the current action, seeking an injunction pursuant to Practice Book §§ 2-47 (c)1 to restrain the defendants from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and issued a restraining order enjoining the defendants from practicing law. The order expressly permitted the defendants to sell books or pamphlets about pro se divorce and to provide typing services for forms. The defendants did not appeal from that judgment.
In July, 1999, the defendants mailed flyers with attached business cards to numerous places. The flyers and business cards contained phrases such as "[w]hat we do is show people how they can obtain a divorce on their own," "[w]e do all the necessary clerical preparation work for the individual," "pro bono work accepted," "extensive research" and "consultation." On the basis of the representations contained in the flyers, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt on August 6, 1999. The court held the defendants in contempt and ordered that they not distribute any advertising material for ten days following submission to the plaintiff for review. The court also ordered the defendants to post a $5000 performance bond with the court. This appeal followed.
The defendants claim that the court improperly found them in contempt of the order not to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The defendants also claim that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof for a finding of contempt.
A finding of contempt is a question of fact; see State v. Jackson, 147 Conn. 167, 170, 158 A.2d 166 (1960); and our standard of review is to determine whether the court abused its discretion in finding that the actions or inactions of the party were in contempt of a court order. Bunche v. Bunche, 36 Conn. App. 322, 324, 650 A.2d 917 (1994).
Certain established standards limit our review of the defendants' claimed improprieties concerning the finding of contempt. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 527-28, 710 A.2d 757 (1998); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puff v. Puff
...661, 671, 133 A.3d 482 (2016) ; Marshall v. Marshall , 151 Conn. App. 638, 651, 97 A.3d 1 (2014) ; Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora , 62 Conn. App. 828, 832, 772 A.2d 681 (2001) ; see also Latino Officers Assn. City of New York, Inc. v. New York , 558 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2009). If......
-
Brody v. Brody
...123 Conn.App. at 749, 3 A.3d 950 ; Campbell v. Campbell, supra, 120 Conn.App. at 767, 993 A.2d 984 ; Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn.App. 828, 832, 772 A.2d 681 (2001). Under the Appellate Court's well established policy, its three judge panel in this case was bound to appl......
-
Kelly v. Kelly, No. FA 88-0506570-S (CT 3/30/2005)
...by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a court order and noncompliance with that order." Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn.App. 828, 772 A.2d 681 (2001) "Although it has not been settled by our Supreme Court as to whether the burden of proof on a contempt motion......
-
Gerber v. Disciplinary Bd. of the N.D. Supreme Court (In re Petition for Leave to Appeal By Gerber)
...lawyer engaged in unauthorized practice by holding himself out as being authorized to practice); see also Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Zadora , 772 A.2d 681 (Conn.App.Ct.2001) (advertising alone can constitute unauthorized practice if advertisement is for activity that amounts to legal serv......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Ct. Nov. 14, 2008) 4-3:4 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Whitney, 227 Conn. 829 (1993) 2-7 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn. App. 828 (2001) 5-5:3, 6-6:1 Steeneck v. University of Bridgeport, 235 Conn. 572 (1995) 1-9:1 Steinmann v. Boyle, 2009 WL 241122 (Conn. Super. Ct. Ja......
-
Professional Responsibility Review 2009
...and State v. Ngobeni, No. CR-06-0129997, 2007 WL 4305581(Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2007). 137. Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn. App. 828, 772 A.2d 681 (2001). 138. Practice Book § 2-34A(b)(8). 139. CBA Task Force on Unauthorized Practice Law on the Internet was formed in Fe......
-
CHAPTER 6 - 6-6 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW AND MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE
...128 Conn. 325 (1942).[91] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Patton, 239 Conn. 251 (1996).[92] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn. App. 828 (2001).[93] Grievance Committee of Bar of Fairfield County v. Dacey, 154 Conn. 129, appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 683, reh'g denied, 387 U.S. ......
-
CHAPTER 5 - 5-5 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
...Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 5.5(a). [84] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 8.5.[85] Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn. App. 828 (2001).[86] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 7.1, Commentary. ...