Page 36 - CLT060721

36 ■ JUNE 7, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
so as to avoid potential further embarrassment Plaintiff is a law firm that represented defen-
for the minor children involved. In balancing the dants. There was an agreement for legal services
interests of the parties with the public interest which was scanned into the computer but was
in the action, the court denied the motion. The lost during a computer crash. Defendant ar-
court noted that the parties had already made gued that plaintiff would not be paid unless de-
themselves known to the public via social media fendant was awarded money by court and that
posts, and that the public’s interest in hate speech plaintiff’s fee would be limited to the amount
outweighed the minors’ privacy interests. awarded. Plaintiff asserted that this was un-
true, and the court agreed, citing invoices pe-
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • CONTRACTS riodically sent to defendant. The court agreed
with plaintiff that because defendants never
Employment Contract Subject to disputed the invoices, this suggested that de-
fendants never believed plaintiff ought to limit
Updated Term Modifications his fees to what was awarded. Plaintiff brought
suit, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrich-
CASE: Bolek v. Town of Brookfield
COURT: Litchfield J.D. at Torrington ment, and quantum meruit. The court agreed
DOC. NO.: CV-16-6014491 that there was a contract given the presence
COURT OPINION BY: Shaban and acceptance of the invoices, and that the
DATE: April 19, 2021 • PAGES: 13 contract was breached. The court awarded
Plaintiff, former employee of defendant, filed plaintiff $21,401.26. Because the court found
a complaint of breach of contract against de- that there was a contract, it held it would be in-
fendant relative to payment of pension benefits. appropriate to find for the quantum meruit and
Parties entered into a Separation Agreement unjust enrichment counts. Defendants filed a
where plaintiff agreed to resign from employ- counterclaim with three counts. While they ar-
ment but would receive benefits under town pen- gued that their attorney improperly withheld
sion plan. Plaintiff received benefits; however, money, the court found that the allegations
defendant discovered it had overpaid plaintiff. were not true. The second count alleged that
This was because the updated version of the plaintiff engaged in oppressive and wanton
employment contract stipulated that employ- conduct. Similarly, the court sided with plain-
ees who retired before age 62 would receive re- tiffs, arguing that plaintiff had appropriately
duced benefits. Plaintiff argued that this was a attempted to collect fees due to him. Finally,
breach of contract. Defendant moved for sum- defendants accused plaintiff of trying to extort
mary judgment. The court found that the up- money, which the court termed “outrageous.”
dated contract was approved by the town board This count was also dismissed.
and the terms were applicable to earlier versions
of the contract. Furthermore, the court noted LEGAL MALPRACTICE •
that the agreement stated that defendant would BANKRUPTCY • DAMAGES
seek to have employees retire after age 62 but
was not compelled to. As such, the court held
that defendant was justified in attempting to Court Awards Emotional Distress
recover overpayments. The court granted sum- Damages in Legal Malpractice Claim
mary judgment since plaintiff failed to meet his
burden of proof. CASE: Valera v. Liga
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6031271
LAW FIRM CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS • COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES DATE: April 19, 2021 • PAGES: 59
Defendant, an attorney, was hired by plain-
Attempting to Collect Owed Legal Fees tiff through the advice of a third party, Coto,
Was Not Extortion to represent plaintiff in a bankruptcy ac-
tion in an attempt to prevent a foreclosure.
CASE: Terk & Carlone LLC v. Saporoso Defendant felt the bankruptcy action would
COURT: New Britain J.D. not be successful and did not perceive his
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6046073 role as representing the plaintiff for foreclo-
COURT OPINION BY: Aurigemma sure, however defendant pursued the claim at
DATE: May 10, 2021 • PAGES: 8 the insistence of plaintiff, and plaintiff tried
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune