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. ******************************************************

O'CONNELL, FLAHERTY AND ATTMORE, LLC v. ELIZABETH A. RICHTER (AC 32353)
Bishop, Robinson and Borden, Js. Argued June 1--officially released August 23, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Graham, J. [motion for continuance]; Domnarski, J. [motions to set aside, to reargue; judgment].) Elizabeth A. (defendant). Richter, pro se, the appellant

Sandi B. Girolamo, with whom were Peter J. Sterling and, on the brief, Pamela M. Magnano, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The self-represented defendant, Elizabeth A. Richter, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of the plaintiff, O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC, on its complaint and on the defendant's counterclaim that alleged legal malpractice. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied her motion for a continuance, (2) precluded the introduction of deposition testimony, and (3) concluded that she had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating legal malpractice. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the claims on appeal. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a representation agreement, under which the plaintiff agreed to represent the defendant in the dissolution of her marriage. The plaintiff represented the defendant until September 5, 2007, when attorney James Flaherty, a partner with the plaintiff, withdrew from his representation of the defendant.1 On March 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint, in which it alleged that the defendant had failed to pay the attorney's fees that she had incurred as a result of the plaintiff's representation. On April 8, 2009, the defendant filed an answer to the plaintiff's complaint and asserted a counterclaim for legal malpractice.2 On July 16, 2009, a subpoena was authorized for the defendant to take the deposition of James Black, a child psychologist, who served as the custody evaluator in the defendant's dissolution case. The defendant, however, was unable to depose Black until January 29, 2010.3 A two day trial began on February 4, 2010. The defendant did not call Black as a witness, but instead attempted to introduce Black's deposition into evidence. The defendant argued that Black had evaluated her during her marital dissolution case, and she therefore wanted to admit his deposition testimony because attorney Flaherty had ``made [her] mental health such a central issue in [the] case . . . .'' The plaintiff objected, arguing that the deposition was irrelevant, as it did not pertain to breach of the standard of care, that Black had not been disclosed as an expert witness and that the deposition was hearsay that did not fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. The court sustained the objection on both relevancy and hearsay grounds. The defendant did not obtain an expert witness to testify as to the standard of care, nor did she disclose any expert witness in accordance with Practice Book

Download O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC v. Richter.pdf

Connecticut Law