Thomas Breen file photo
Rick Silverstein in court with co-counsel Jamie Alosi.
A fed-up state judge slapped colorful New Haven criminal defense attorney Rick Silverstein with a one-year suspension from practicing law — as Silverstein vowed to appeal in order to keep representing his 500 clients and save his three-decade-plus career.
State Superior Court Judge Brian Fischer handed down that decision Tuesday in a professional disciplinary case against Silverstein, who has earned a reputation for combative courtroom tactics over the course of his 37 years practicing law in his home city of New Haven.
In a nine-page decision, Fischer suspended Silverstein from practicing law for one year starting on Dec. 8. The judge appointed another lawyer, Christopher Duby, to serve as the trustee responsible for protecting the interests and funds of Silverstein’s clients.
Fischer went far beyond the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation that Silverstein only be reprimanded for the case in question, which involved a $250 bank overdraft and years in delayed responses to official requests for explanation and an audit. (See more on that below.)
The judge cited as his reason for the stricter penalty Silverstein’s history of discipline for professional misconduct over the past two decades, including five reprimands and one arrest between 2000 and 2011.
“In determining an appropriate order of discipline to be issued against the Respondent [that is, Silverstein] the court considers his extensive history of professional misconduct and his egregious conduct in this presentment,” Judge Fischer wrote. “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.”
In an interview Friday at his Elm Street office within two blocks of both downtown state courthouses, Silverstein said he “was surprised, but upon reflection, not astonished” by being disciplined, “because I don’t enjoy the best reputation with the bench.” He said the severity of the discipline, however, was “completely unexpected.”
There aren’t many defense attorneys left in Connecticut as aggressive and zealous as he, Silverstein noted. His style of courtroom practice in his defense of his clients — including accused murderers and harassers — does not win him friends.
He still characterized Fischer’s one-year suspension “a little harsh for the conduct they found me in violation of.”
Silverstein, who is 66, said he plans to appeal the decision. He wants to keep representing his firm’s roughly 500 clients. He always intended to continue practicing law until he was 70.
If his appeal is unsuccessful and if the one-year suspension stands, he plans to retire. “I feel awful for them,” he said about his staff and his clients.
“I’m a New Haven boy. I’ve done my best,” he said. He said he wants to keep up that work, including with a trial he’s scheduled to start with his co-counsel (and wife) Jamie Alosi on Dec. 5. But with the Dec. 8 suspension start date looming, that might not be possible.
Nora Grace-Flood file photo
Judge Fischer: "Enough is enough."
The alleged professional wrongdoing at the center of this latest disciplinary case dates back to August 2019, when KeyBank notified the Statewide Grievance Committee that there had been a $250 overdraft from an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) maintained by Silverstein. An IOLTA is an attorney’s client’s trust account.
According to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s complaint, Silverstein failed to respond to two requests from the Statewide Grievance Committee for a written explanation for the overdraft, and then failed to comply with a Reviewing Committee-ordered audit of that same IOLTA account in a timely manner.
The Statewide Grievance Committee voted in June of this year to direct the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel to go to court to seek discipline of Silverstein.
During an Aug. 17 hearing, Silverstein reportedly “blamed his bank for the overdraft notices and stated he will now comply with the audit request,” according to Fischer’s writeup.
And in a Nov. 21 hearing, Silverstein admitted to violating two so-called “Rules of Professional Conduct” in this case: one for failing to keep complete records for his IOLTA 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.
In the Friday interview with the Independent, Silverstein explained his side of what happened.
He said $21,000 had been stolen from his bank account back in 2019. He said the bank made him file police reports for all 22 checks that constituted the theft. He said everything took so much longer than expected, including getting the necessary records from his bank, because of the pandemic and becaused of a falling out with the bank itself. He said the bank closed his account because of unfounded accusations of money laundering. The bank’s closure of his account is what led to the overdraft.
Silverstein stressed that the audit of his account revealed that he had done nothing wrong, that all the money was where it should be, that he hadn’t stolen anything. He praised the state’s chief disciplinary counsel as an “honorable and honest man,” and said he agreed with the disciplinary counsel’s recommendation of a reprimand.
As Judge Fischer made clear in his ruling, he disagreed.
“The overdraft notice concerned a check for $250,” Fischer wrote. “The issue in this presentment is not the amount of the check, but the Respondent’s refusal to respond to the Grievance Committee. Whether the check was for $250, $2,500, or $25,000 is immaterial.”
The judge continued: “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.”
Silverstein said that he thought the “crawling on hands and knees” comment by the judge was a bridge too far and “gratuitous.” No one should have to crawl in such a manner, he said.
The judge continued in his decision: “The Respondent, by his actions, has shown an utter disdain for the Rules of Professional Conduct and an utter disdain for cooperating with the grievance authorities. To issue him his sixth reprimand would be a total miscarriage of justice. Why issue him his sixth letter of reprimand so he can continue to flaunt the Rules of Professional Conduct? Simply put, enough is enough.”
With that, Fischer ordered that Silverstein be suspended from the practice of law for a year starting on Dec. 8; that another attorney be appointed trustee responsible for his clients and their funds; and that Silverstein provide all of the necessary client info to this newly appointed trustee within 72 hours.
“The Respondent’s failure to comply with these orders shall be considered misconduct and may subject the Respondent to additional discipline.”
The loss of Attorney Silverstein's services will be a hardship for his clients. He approaches his clients with compassion and a high level of skill.
For some reason lawyers who practice in the area of criminal law often get themselves into hot water. He's not the first and won't be the last.
It is true that most attorneys fear even getting routine letters from the Grievance Committee (which is why I've recommended that routine bills bear some other return address) and are terrified beyond reason for even minor violations.
Still the question has to be asked: does the punishment fit the "crime" (note: violations of the Code of Professional Conduct" are not a basis for any civil or criminal action)