Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
The principal issue in this appeal from the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on an attorney is whether, having found initially that a contingent fee agreement was neither unlawful nor unethical, the trial court nonetheless properly sanctioned the attorney for having charged an unreasonable fee and for having disbursed the fee to himself in an unreasonable manner. Under the circumstances of this case, in which the attorney improperly calculated the amount that the contingency fee agreement entitled him to collect and improperly collected his fee from assets entrusted to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- State v. MagnanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Goffney v. Rabson, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2001
- State v. SantangeloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Krattenstein v. G. Fox & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kosiorek v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Smigelski v. KosiorekConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Disciplinary Counsel v. ParnoffConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
- Disciplinary Counsel v. SmigelskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Disciplinary Counsel v. SpornConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.