On Thursday, February 9, 2023, the Connecticut Appellate Court granted the Motion for Review of attorney Norman A. Pattis, who represented far-right and alt-right radio show host Alex Jones in the defamation case brought by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.
The case is entitled “Erica Lafferty, et al., v. Alex Emric Jones, et al.” and was brought by Erica Lafferty, et al., with case no. UWYCV186046436S.
In a Memorandum of Decision re Order to Show Cause attorney Norman Pattis, dated January 5, 2023, it was stated that the respondent violated rules of Professional Conduct arising from his improper disclosure of confidential medical and other records. In accordance with this, the court agreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Counsel then to suspend the attorney from the practice of law in the State of Connecticut for a period of six months.
The filing states:
“Half an hour later, Wolman responded to Lee by email, stating that on March 28, 2022, he had given Atkinson a new SSD drive with several hundred gigabytes, which Atkinson confirmed workedl6. Wolman suggested that Atkinson’s office Fed Ex the hard drive to Lee, and noted that Lee would need to get the Connecticut plaintiffs’ recent compliance from “Norm’s team. ” Six minutes later, Wolman emailed Lee again, copying the same five individuals including the respondent and Atkinson, warning that in light of this court’s protective order, Lee might not be authorized to access the Connecticut plaintiffs’ confidential documents”
The filing continues:
“Lee responded to Wolman five minutes later, copying the same five individuals including the respondent and Atkinson, thanking Wolman and confirming that he would “look into the confidentiality situation in the Connecticut litigation .” A few minutes later, Lee emailed Rodriguez, asking him to locate the confidentiality order, and asking the respondent and Atkinson if they knew what Wolman was referring to tools. Shortly thereafter, Lee responded to Wolman’s email, confirming that he would follow through with Atkinson and the respondent.”
On January 13, 2023, Norman Pattis filed a Writ of error which was directed to the decision of the trial court to suspend him. It asserts that Pattis was disciplined in violation of settled judicial rules and precedent.
The filing further states:
“The writ asserts, among other claims, that Pattis was disciplined in violation of settled judicial rules and precedent; his prosecution and suspension were conducted in violation of his rights to due process and reflect a growing, and disturbing, trend among trial court judges of dispensing summary judgment against aggressive lawyers, a tendency that cannot help but undermine the adversarial system and create a more limpid inquisitorial regime.”
As Mr. Pattis petitioned for the Writ of Error, he claimed relief for a) An order imposing a stay while the Respondent pursues his appeals; b) an order vacating the judgment and setting aside the suspension of Mr. Pattis.
On January 23, 2023, the court released an Order declining to terminate the stay. The court emphasized that there was no evidence offered to suggest that the respondent has taken any measures to prevent any further improper handling of the opposing party’s medical or financial records.
The filing additionally notes:
“There was no evidence offered to suggest that the respondent has taken any measures to prevent any further improper handling of an opposing party’s medical or financial records., despite the bald assertion by the respondent in his reply brief that “steps have already been taken to prevent such misconduct from recurring”Given this lack of an explanation, coupled with the respondent’s repeated argument that there was only a single mistake made, the court remained concerned with protecting the public and other litigants during a lengthy appeal process. There is a substantial public interest in protecting the public and other litigants from the misconduct of an attorney who not only fails to label or Identify medical and other protected records, but also intentionally improperly disseminates the records, despite the warnings of the court, plaintiffs’ counsel, and his own clients’ prior attorney.”
Unsatisfied, Mr. Pattis filed a Motion for Review. On February 9, 2023, the court granted the Motion for Review. Moreover, it stated that the relief is granted in the trial court’s January 5, 2023, Disciplinary Order is stated until the final Resolution of the Writ of Error.
As of today, Mr. Pattis is listed as a Trial and Appellate Lawyer at Criminal Defense Lawyer. He practices in New York City, Metropolitan Area. He is licensed in New York and as well in Connecticut. His info can be found on Linkedin.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
