Page 7 - CLT120720

NEWS DECEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 7

vices and not a “product seller” The pub, like others in the state,
under the Connecticut Product was ordered closed for a time. Then
Liability Act. the governor eased the restric-
The state Supreme Court will In a case of alleged tions by allowing for alcohol to be
attorney misconduct, the served during outdoor dining and,
decide whether the trial court cor- chief disciplinary counsel later, during indoor dining.
rectly concluded that hospitals filed a grievance complaint
can’t be product sellers of medical But Casey said neither indoor
devices under the CPLA. against an attorney who nor outdoor dining was feasible
had served as trustee for economically or physically and
the sole beneficiary of an “their customers have no interest
Kristine Casey v. Gov. Ned in purchasing prepared takeout
meals or sealed alcoholic beverag-
Lamont estate.
There were many lawsuits filed
against Gov. Ned Lamont stem- es for off-premises consumption.”
ming from his executive orders The trial court sided with the
related to the closing or limiting governor and the plaintiffs coun-
the operations of certain establishments due to the tered that the governor doesn’t have the statutory
COVID-19 pandemic. authority to issue the executive orders in question.
Now, the Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed Those powers, the plaintiffs maintain, rest solely with
to hear one of those cases. the General Assembly under the state constitution. ¦
The state’s high court will hear the lawsuit that
Kristine Casey and Black Sheep Enterprises LLC Robert Storace covers legal trends, lawsuits and
filed against the governor. Casey and Black Sheep analysis for the Connecticut Law Tribune. Follow
own a Milford pub that mostly serves alcohol and him on Twitter @RobertSCTLaw or reach him at
only a little food. 203-437-5950.

Looking for Employment Lawyer
Daniel Schwartz? OK, Which One?

By Robert Storace

Big Law attorneys Daniel A. Schwartz of Ship- The first of many confusing episodes occurred
man & Goodwin and Daniel L. Schwartz of when Daniel L. Schwartz opened up a letter ad-
Day Pitney are both employment attorneys dressed to “Dan Schwartz at Day Pitney.” It was
who have had their share of unusual and sometimes meant for the other Daniel Schwartz and it was a
comical situations due to their name. little risque.
The two Schwartzes, who aren’t related and be- “It was a letter from a young lady and delivered
came friends when they worked together at Day to Dan Schwartz at Day Pitney,” said Daniel L.
Pitney for nearly 10 years, have taken the looks, Schwartz. “This lady was clearly enamored with Dan
stares and confusion on the part of others in Schwartz.”
stride. Daniel L. Schwartz swears he only read the first
Someone, though, forgot to tell the Day Pitney paragraph and gave the letter to his friend after re-
mail clerk about the two Dan Schwartzes, when they alizing it wasn’t meant for him. That woman later
both worked together at the firm beginning in the married Daniel A. Schwartz.
mid-1990s.
¦ Continued on PAGE 8

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune