Former Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson is facing ethics questions after joining a firm that he previously heard appeals from in the case Clinton v. Aspinwall, according to CT Mirror.
Robinson sat on the panel that heard the first appeal in Clinton v. Aspinwall and took part in the court’s internal deliberations about the case. After retiring from the court, he joined the law firm Day Pitney LLP, which represents the plaintiff in that same dispute.
Robinson began working on a case again in 2024, despite having overseen the same matter two years earlier, as CT Mirror reported.
The dispute involves co-owners of CCP Equity Partners, a private equity firm organized as a Delaware limited liability company.
Billing records submitted by Day Pitney as court exhibits on Feb. 25 show that on Sept. 20, 2024, Robinson recorded three time entries on the bill for reviewing the case. According to CT Mirror, the defendants were preparing to submit their second appeal at that time.
The defense is represented by West Hartford attorney Garrett Flynn’s client, who is now asking a Superior Court judge to disqualify Day Pitney from the case and to order a hearing compelling Robinson to testify about how deeply he was involved, according to Hartford Business.
According to Hartford Business, Flynn is arguing that Robinson’s work violates Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12, which generally bars a former judge from later representing a party in the same matter without all sides’ informed and written consent, and that Robinson’s knowledge of confidential deliberations gave Day Pitney an unfair advantage.
“CT Rule 1.12 is a common sense conflict-of-interest rule that prevents a party to a lawsuit from gaining an unfair advantage by capitalizing on knowledge gained by the party’s lawyer while earlier serving as a judge (or other neutral) in the same case. The rule also tends to increase public confidence in the courts by preventing any appearance of impropriety, even where no actual advantage would be gained,” Paul Chill, a clinical professor of law emeritus at the University of Connecticut School of Law, wrote in an email. “Most states have a similar if not identical rule.”
The plaintiff, John Clinton, sued the other co-owners after they used their majority ownership to amend the company’s operating agreement, maintain a $3 million capital reserve and ultimately remove him as a member. Clinton claimed these actions breached the operating agreement and violated fiduciary duties owed to him.
The central legal issue was how to interpret a “duty of care” clause in the operating agreement and whether language referencing bad faith, gross negligence or willful misconduct created affirmative duties for the company’s managers or simply functioned as an exculpatory clause limiting their liability under Delaware LLC law.
A jury initially ruled in Clinton’s favor and awarded damages and attorney’s fees, but the Connecticut Appellate Court and later the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that outcome, concluding that the trial court had misinterpreted the operating agreement by treating the exculpatory language as if it imposed duties. Because the jury instructions were based on that incorrect interpretation, the courts determined the judgment could not stand, making the case an important precedent on how courts interpret operating agreements and liability provisions in LLC governance disputes.