Legal Opinion
Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 4, 2007No. AC 27629PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires in relevant part that attorneys in our state “shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. . . ,”1 The defendant, the statewide grievance committee, reprimanded the plaintiff attorney, Max F. Brunswick, for violating that rule in the course of his representation of a client in an arbitration proceeding. Pursuant…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Western United Realty, Inc. v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Brown and Brown, Inc. v. BlumenthalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Lewis v. SlackConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Papic v. BurkeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Robert J. Barnabei Contracting, LLC v. Greater Hartford Jewish Community Center, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.