‘Insult’ Lawyer Appeals Suspension

FILEA judge ruled Monday that a defense attorney whose law license he suspended can still practice while appealing the case.

Waterbury Superior Court Judge Salvatore Agati had ruled Jan. 2 that Rob Serafinowicz would be suspended for 120 days beginning Feb. 1 in connection with what he called the lawyer’s baseless assault” on Derby Superior Court Judge Burton Kaplan.

But after Serafinowicz’s lawyer filed notice he would appeal the case, Judge Agati ruled Monday that, in view of the length of the suspension,” Serafinowicz can still practice while challenging his decision.

Background

Serafinowicz accused Judge Kaplan of having a vendetta against him since his successful defense of an Ansonia cop accused of stealing a garden hose from the police department.

Patricia King, the state’s Chief Displinary Counsel, filed a complaint against Serafinowicz in March 2012 at Superior Court in Waterbury, days after Serafinowicz gave an interview to the Valley Indy and New Haven Register outside the Derby courthouse during which he lashed out at Judge Kaplan.

Serafinowicz was in court that day to defend a Derby Middle School dean accused of bringing narcotics to the school.

Months before, he had filed a motion asking Judge Kaplan to recuse himself from the LaRovera case, citing a complaint he had filed against the judge with the state’s Judicial Review Council.

But, according to Judge Agati’s ruling, Judge Kaplan was never told about Serafinowicz’s complaint because the complaint was never really pending — Serafinowicz didn’t gave the Judicial Review Council additional information it needed to process the document, which was sent back to him.

About a year after King’s complaint was filed, Serafinowicz signed an affidavit denying some or all” of the allegations but acknowledging there was ample evidence to find he had violated the state’s rules of conduct for lawyers.

Click here for more information from a previous story.

The Valley Indy was the first to report on the lawyer’s disciplinary woes and the article was reprinted in the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Young Lawyer Of Exceptional Talent’

Two days after Judge Agati’s ruling calling for a 120-day suspension, Serafinowicz’s lawyer, Norm Pattis, filed an appeal in the case.

In his motion seeking a delay to the suspension, Pattis wrote that the 120-day suspension is disproportionate to the offense, and in violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech.”

The purpose of attorney discipline is not punishment, but protection of the public and to safeguard the administration of justice,” Pattis wrote, citing Judge Agati’s decision.

In this case, there is no threat to the public,” Pattis went on. The respondent was not involved in conduct that presented a danger to the public. This is not a case involving defalcation of client funds; there is no question that the respondent remains perfectly fit and capable to practice law. Indeed, according to letters and testimony offered on his behalf disciplinary hearing, the respondent is a young lawyer of exceptional talent.”

Pattis wrote that Serafinowicz’s offense was to have spoken perhaps too freely to the press about his feelings regarding another judge.”

Whatever damage the remarks may have done to the public’s perception of what goes on in the courts, no evidence was presented that the respondent’s conduct actually hampered the administration of justice, however much it may, or may not, have discomfited the judge in question,” Pattis wrote, noting that Judge Kaplan did not testify in these proceedings, did not offer a statement, and was not himself the complainant in this matter.”

He also disputed Judge Agati’s finding that Serafinowicz misrepresented the fact that he had a grievance pending against Judge Kaplan.

Pattis’ motion is posted below.

Fails To Appreciate The Recklessness Of His Conduct’

Desi Imetovski, the state’s assistant chief disciplinary counsel, filed a response to Pattis’ motion Jan. 17, arguing that the suspension should stand because Judge Agati didn’t abuse his discretion in the case.

Imetovski also wrote that by issuing a ruling Jan. 2 and delaying the suspension until Feb. 1, the judge gave Serafinowicz ample time to make arrangements with his existing clients.”

She went on to write that Pattis’ motion failed to report that (Serafinowicz) is the subject of a new, pending grievance complaint” filed last year.

The motion does not detail the new complaint against Serafinowicz but says probable cause has been found in the case.

(Serafinowicz) apparently continues to engage in misconduct so that the pendency of this grievance complaint has to date not had a salutary effect on his conduct,” Imetovski wrote. Contrary to respondent’s assertions that letters and testimony offered on his behalf show he is a young lawyer of exceptional talent’ and poses no immanent harm’ to the public, his record and his admission reflect that he failed to practice within the bounds of ethical conduct.”

Imetovski also took Pattis to task for his characterization of Serafinowicz’s comments about Judge Kaplan, saying it demonstrates Serafinowicz fails to appreciate the recklessness of his conduct.”

Even in his motion, he minimizes his misconduct by describing his offense as having spoken too freely to the press about his feelings regarding another judge’ and his remarks to the media as impolitic,’” she wrote. The respondent fails to acknowledge the seriousness of his misconduct which was described by the court as a baseless assault on the judiciary’ … The respondent demonstrates his inability to adhere to the bounds of professional conduct continues.”

Serafinowicz Motion For Stay

Keep local reporting alive. Donate.ValleyIndy.org