Thomas Breen / Nora Grace-Flood file photos
Norm Pattis, appealing on behalf of Rick Silverstein against Judge Fischer's ruling.
Defense attorney Norm Pattis filed an appeal to try to save the career of fellow defense attorney Rick Silverstein, accusing a judge of “shocking” bias in suspending Silverstein’s law license for failing to “crawl on his hands and knees” to comply with a grievance panel’s orders.
That’s the latest episode in the contested discipline of Richard Silverstein, which could put an end to the 37-year career of a criminal defense attorney who has long been a fixture of New Haven’s courtrooms for his aggressive trial defenses of accused murderers and harassers.
On Nov. 28, state Superior Court Judge Brian Fischer suspended Silverstein from practicing law for one year, starting on Friday. The discipline stems from a $250 check that bounced from one of Silverstein’s client’s trust accounts in 2019 and Silverstein’s subsequent years of delays in explaining what happened and complying with a mandatory audit. Silverstein, who is 66, later admitted to violating two so-called“Rules of Professional Conduct” in this case: one for failing to keep complete records for his client’s trust account, the other for failing to respond to two overdraft notices, the grievance panel’s request for an explanation, and the Reviewing Committee-ordered audit.
Fischer wrote in his decision that, given Silverstein’s disciplinary record, he should have been much more compliant with the grievance panel’s orders. “He has five reprimands, an imposition of conditions, and one suspension for a period of six months, which was stayed. This is an abhorrent history for a practicing attorney,” Fischer wrote. “Most attorneys with the disciplinary track record of the Respondent would have crawled on their hands and knees to deliver the requested documents to the Grievance Committees fearing their right to practice law could be suspended at any time. The Respondent’s cavalier attitude towards the grievance process is staggering.”
On Tuesday, Pattis — another colorful, aggressive New Haven litigator with his share of controversial clients and courtroom defenses — filed an appeal in state court on Silverstein’s behalf.
Pattis’s appeal and a related motion for immediate interim stay seeks to stop the one-year suspension from going into effect until a higher court has a chance to weigh in on the validity of Fischer’s initial decision. (On Wednesday, the appellate court granted Pattis’s motion for immediate interim stay, pushing out the start of Silverstein’s suspension from Dec. 8 to Dec. 15, and opening the door for a longer potential stay as Silverstein pursues his appeal.)
The reasons Pattis cited for his appeal included Fischer’s “shocking” crawling-on-hands-and-knees language.
Pattis criticized the trial court judge for acting more out of a dislike for Silverstein as a lawyer than out of a concern with the facts of this particular disciplinary proceeding. “Certain remarks made by the trial court regarding the respondent, noting his ‘abhorrent’ disciplinary history and suggesting that a lawyer in the respondent’s position might ‘crawl[…] on [his] hands and knees’ to a reviewing panel suggest an actual animus on behalf of the trial court towards the respondent and are so wholly exaggerated as to undermine respect for the law, and the court.”
Pattis returned to that line of argument later in the appeal, where he again criticized the judge’s “demonstrated bias against Attorney Silverstein in the form of intemperate remarks, including a shocking statement about attorney’s appearing on ‘hands and knees’ before regulators.”
“Moreover, without minimizing the seriousness of the conduct for which the Respondent was disciplined, a one-year suspension is a disproportionate punishment for the misconduct found by the trial court: failure to respond to an inquiry regarding a bounced check for $250 and to submit to an audit,” Pattis continued. “No client was harmed as a result of these issues. The offense was admittedly an affront to the inherent authority of the Court, and Attorney Silverstein has expressed his regret and embarrassment over having done so. Simply put, the punishment does not fit the crime.”
Also in his brief, Pattis argued that there is “insufficient evidence for a court to conclude that a $250 overdraft in 2019 renders the respondent a danger to the public” and therefore deserving of such severe discipline: “Indeed, the respondent has hundreds of clients throughout the state and is a much sought-after member of the criminal bar.”
Pattis also took umbrage with Fischer’s citing of Silverstein’s lengthy disciplinary history — including five reprimands and an arrest between 2000 and 2011 — as warranting such serious action in this case.
The judge referenced this history when explaining why he decided to suspend Silverstein for a year instead of follow the recommendation of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and simply reprimand Silverstein for this matter.
“Holding antiquated cases against the respondent in this case comes close to turning a blind eye to the requirements of justice,” Pattis wrote, particularly given that some of Silverstein’s past discipline was a result of drug addiction.
And with that, Pattis called on the appellate court to issue “an immediate interim stay” on the one-year suspension, thereby allowing Silverstein to retain his license to practice law in Connecticut “until such time as this Court can rule on his appeal of the trial court’s decision suspending him.”
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel had not filed a response to Pattis’s appeal by the publication time of this article. The office did indicate its support for upholding Silverstein’s one-year suspension in an objection filed on Dec. 1 pushing back on Silverstein’s subsequently denied request to pause his suspension from going into effect.
In that filing, Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel attorney Brian Staines wrote that the suspension should remain in place because “it is unlikely that the respondent will prevail in his appeal. The respondent appeared before the court, admitted the rule violations, and the court made a finding of these violations by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the court holds wide discretion in fashioning an appropriate order.”
Staines continued by responding to Silverstein’s claim that hundreds of his clients will be harmed by the sudden year-long suspension of his law license. “This argument is applicable to all clients of attorneys who suffer a suspension of their law license. It is the respondent’s own conduct that brought about this suspension,” Staines wrote. “At any point the court determines to initiate the suspension would certainly deny the clients of the deactivated Attorney their choice of counsel. This is something that is simply unavoidable.”
This is simply disgusting and a huge hardship for his clients who trust very few attorneys with their lives. Sigh.