Page 35 - CLT062821

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 28, 2021 ■ 35
timely certificate of good standing. Sussman noted that Sussman’s letter seeking reconsid-
failed to timely file the certificate. On April 26, eration failed to comply with elementary rules
2021, the court entered an order revoking Suss- of court, and therefore raised serious doubts
man’s provisional visiting status. Sussman filed about his familiarity with the rules that he at-
a letter seeking reconsideration of the court’s tested to reviewing. The court found that Suss-
order revoking his privileges. The court denied man’s letter was not properly before the court
Sussman’s request with prejudice. The court because it was electronically filed by plaintiff,
noted that the local rule requires the visiting who is an attorney admitted to the District,
attorney’s attestation that the attorney fully re- but plaintiff did not sign the pleading. There-
viewed Federal Rules, Local Rules, and State fore, the court denied plaintiff’s request for
Rules. Sussman filed an affidavit attesting that reconsideration of the court’s order revoking
he reviewed such rules. However, the court Sussman’s provisional admission.

IN WHAT PRACTICES ARE YOUR

COMPETITORS GROWING?

Ask Legal Compass:

at.alm.com/legalcompass

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune