Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

CHAPMAN LUMBER, INC. v. CLIFFORD L. TAGER (SC 18021) (SC 18023) (SC 18026) (SC 18022)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued January 9--officially released July 22, 2008

Jeffrey J. Tinley, with whom, on the brief, was Matthew J. Corcoran, for the appellant in Docket Nos. SC 18021, 18023 and 18026, appellee in Docket No. SC 18022 (defendant). Charles F. Brower, with whom was Marcus G. Organschi, for the appellee in Docket Nos. SC 18021, 18023 and 18026, appellant in Docket No. SC 18022 (plaintiff).

Opinion

SCHALLER, J. These appeals arise out of litigation brought against an attorney for the allegedly improper actions he undertook in connection with his representation of a financially troubled client. Both the defendant, Attorney Clifford L. Tager, and the plaintiff, Chapman Lumber, Inc., have appealed from the judgment rendered in accordance with a jury verdict, as it subsequently was modified by the trial court, and the defendant has filed two additional appeals challenging certain postjudgment rulings of the court. The defendant claims that the trial court: (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the plaintiff's claims were not ripe for adjudication;1 (2) improperly declined to open the judgment and set aside the jury's verdict, in whole or in part, because (a) the verdict violates public policy by imposing on an attorney a duty to a nonclient, (b) the verdict is contrary to applicable law governing the causes of action at issue and (c) the defendant's conduct, even if improper, did not cause the plaintiff's damages; (3) improperly awarded prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes

Download Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager.pdf

Connecticut Law