The Rise of AirBnb - c.ymcdn.com · PDF filedrew in legal professionals from throughout the...

The Rise of AirBnbCase of theMissing CommaInsuranceAspects inBicycle and Recreational Accidents

Summer 2017 Volume 27/Number 5

BUILD A STRONGER DEFENSE AGAINST PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RISK. RELY ON KRONHOLM INSURANCE SERVICES AND CNA.

Please remember that only the relevant insurance policy can provide the actual terms, coverages, amounts, conditions and exclusions for an insured. All products and services may not be available in all states and may be subject to change without notice. CNA is a registered trademark of CNA Financial Corporation. Copyright © 2015 CNA. All rights reserved. PS043M

As part of an insurance organization with over $55 billion in assets and an “A” rating from A.M. Best, we have the financial strength you can count on. If a claim is made against you, our Lawyers’ Professional Liability Insurance Program will provide you with superior claim handling by experienced attorneys who specialize in Lawyers’ Professional Liability Insurance. With claim services designed specifically for law firms, and risk control programs proven to help minimize loss, if you’re looking for reliable coverage in the great state of Connecticut … we can show you more.®

For a quote or more information, contact Kronholm Insurance Services at 800-842-8444 or visit www.kronholminsurance.com.

BUILD A STRONGER DEFENSEAGAINST PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RISK. RELY ONKRONHOLM INSURANCESERVICES AND CNA.

Kronholm Insurance Services

Professional Liability Insurance Provider

Winner

For a quote or more information, contact Kronholm Insurance Services* at [email protected] or visit www.kronholminsurance.com.*A division of Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc.

http://kronholminsurance.com/

ConnecticutLAWYER

FEATURESCONTENTS

Have an idea for an article? Contact [email protected] suggestions are welcome.

2016-2017 OfficersMonte E. Frank, PresidentKaren DeMeola, President-electJonathan M. Shapiro, Vice PresidentSylvia K. Rutkowska, SecretaryVincent P. Pace, TreasurerEmily Graner Sexton, Assistant Secretary-TreasurerWilliam H. Clendenen, Jr., Immediate Past PresidentConnecticut Lawyer Advisory Committee Elizabeth C. Yen (Chair), Myles H. Alderman, Jr., David Austin, Frank S. Berall, Thomas Chapman, Joseph A. Cipparone, Dean M. Cordiano, Jeffrey C. Dannenberg, Proloy K. Das, Brian J. Donnell, Steven J. Errante, Emily A. Gianquinto, Theodore W. Heiser, Noah Jon Kores, Charles D. Ray, Daniel J. Roberts, Fred D. Sette, Gregory A. Sharp, Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Bolesh J. Skutnik

Connecticut Lawyer Staff Editor in-Chief: Alysha Adamo, [email protected] Associate Editor: Leanna Zwiebel, [email protected] Designer: Dan Anderson, [email protected] Advertising: Natalie Jackson, [email protected] Copyright 2017 by the Connecticut Bar Association. All rights reserved. The copying, duplication, transferring, reproducing, reusing, or reprinting of the Connecticut Lawyer is strictly prohibited without permission. Pub-lication of advertising does not imply endorsement of products, services, or statements made concerning them. All advertising copy is subject to approval. The editor reserves the right to reject advertising. The goal of the Connecticut Lawyer is to provide a forum for the free expression of ideas. The opinions and positions stated in signed articles are those of the authors and not those of the Connecticut Bar Association. The Connecticut Bar Association welcomes the submission of articles by its members. For editorial guidelines, please e-mail [email protected].

Manuscripts accepted for publication become the prop-erty of the Connecticut Bar Association. No compensa-tion is paid for articles published.

The Connecticut Lawyer (ISSN 10572384) is published six times per year by the Connecticut Bar Association, 30 Bank Street, New Britain, CT 06051-2276. CBA mem-bership includes a subscription. Periodicals postage paid at New Britain, CT, and additional offices.

POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Connecticut Lawyer, 30 Bank St, New Britain, CT 06051-2276.

COLUMNSPresident’s Message ..................... 2Time to Go Pro Bono ................... 28Supreme Deliberations ................ 30Young Lawyers ............................ 34

DEPARTMENTSNews & Events ...............................5Court Decisions ............................32

12Impressive Honorees Inspire the Legal CommunityBy Leanna ZwiebelThe CBA’s annual awards celebration, “Celebrate with the Stars,” was a resounding success. Learn about the inspiring speeches along with the night’s festivities in this recap.

16CBA Hosts Sold Out Connecticut Legal ConferenceBy Leanna ZwiebelRecapture the events of the CBA’s annual legal conference. This year’s sold out event was a day filled with educational seminars, networking opportunities, and recognition that drew in legal professionals from throughout the state.

20The Rise of AirBnb and Short Term Rentals and the Implications for Local Zoning RegulationsBy Jason A. KleinFor more than a decade, states across the country have had an increase in the amount of short term rentals, thanks to websites such as “Airbnb.” Since these short term rentals possess both residential and commercial characteristics, states are enacting zoning controls to ensure the appropriate growth of this emerging use.

22The Case of the Missing CommaBy Elizabeth C. YenThis article discusses a recent case that United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was called upon to analyze a Maine overtime wage statute due to a potentially missing serial comma.

24Overlooked Insurance Aspects of Bicycle and Recreational AccidentsBy Edward Monico, MD, JD and Seth Powsner, MDEmergency physicians are familiar with bicycle related accidents; however, cyclists may still suffer insurance and other legal consequences. This article addresses the recreational and legal complications of amateur and recreational cycling activities, including charity bike races.

2 Connecticut Lawyer Summer 2017 Visit www.ctbar.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Monte E. Frank is the 93rd president of the CBA. He is a principal in Cohen and Wolf’s Litigation and Municipal Groups, representing business and municipal clients in the state and federal courts in Connecticut on a wide range of matters. He works from the firm’s Danbury and Bridgeport offices.

Express meeting room in Washington, D.C., talking openly with African Ameri-can leaders about gun violence and race.

Of course, the author of the Connecti-cut Law Tribune’s take down of the CBA, and me, did not know any of this. He also did not realize that he lit a fuse in me to use my position as a leader in the CBA to move the needle. And, in doing so I have met, worked with, and become friends with, some amazing people who have challenged me in so many ways. They have worked effectively and diligently to not only advance diversity and inclusion in the legal community, but to advance the legal profession as a whole.

The work of the CBA, led by its Diversity and Inclusion Committee, which I have co-chaired with Cecil Thomas and Maggie Castinado, has been extraordinary. Here are some of the highlights:

• On March 23, 2015, the House of Del-egates unanimously approved a diver-sity and inclusion policy, which states, “The Connecticut Bar Association is committed to diversity in its member-ship, officers, staff, House of Delegates, Board of Governors, executive com-mittee, sections and committees, and their respective leaders. Diversity is an

necticut Law Tribune lamenting the lack of diversity in the CBA, as demonstrated by the selection of me as Vice President. When I read it, I was angry, not because I thought the author was wrong (he wasn’t), but because the author judged me without knowing me.

What the author did not know was that I had just emerged from a year following the Sandy Hook School shooting during which my eyes were opened to gun vio-lence on our city streets, and the biases that go with it. One moment of clarity oc-curred at an event I spoke at in Harlem earlier that year. Jumaane Williams, a New York City councilman representing Flatbush in Brooklyn, looked at me and said he understood the pain of the fami-lies of Newtown and that it was a “ter-rible thing.” Then he queried why it is that when a shooting occurs in the suburbs, people assume it’s a mental health issue, but when it happens in Harlem or Bedford Stuyvesant, people say, look at those “ani-mals.” I had similar conversations with Rev. Sam Saylor of Springfield, Rev. Henry Brown of Hartford, Pastor Vernon Wil-liams of Harlem, and so many others. One such conversation took place while sitting around a table for hours in a Holiday Inn

In my penultimate column as your presi-dent, I am celebrating the accomplish-ments of the Connecticut Bar Associa-tion to advance diversity and inclusion in the Connecticut legal landscape. And, while I am pleased with our efforts, we have a long way to go. As Robert Frost so aptly said, “The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.”

When I became Vice President of the CBA in 2014, many were rightfully critical of the association’s lack of diversity and in-clusion. While there were some faint con-versations occurring, there was very little focus and almost no action. Sadly, the CBA did not even have a diversity and inclu-sion policy.

At that time, an editorial ran in the Con-

Celebrate DiversityBy Monte E. Frank

http://www.cohenandwolf.com/

Connecticut Lawyer Summer 2017 3

ers at the ABA Mid-Year meeting in Miami. For more infomration, visit ctbar.org/Resolution10B.

• On April 20, 2017, the CBA and the Con-necticut Bar Foundation co-sponsored a diversity symposium at UConn School of Law. Several people who were origi-nally skeptical of the CBA’s commit-ment to diversity, led discussions.

• The CBA has developed a survey for its leadership to provide a benchmark, so we can assess the effectiveness of our efforts as we move forward.

• President-elect Karen DeMeola has launched a pipeline program called Pathways to Legal Careers: An Access and Opportunity Pipeline Program. Pathways is designed to provide insight about law and the legal profession to high school students with the hope of encouraging talented and diverse stu-dents to consider a legal career.

We have worked hard to make diversity and inclusion part of the fabric of the CBA. To take us to the next level, we will be hir-ing a Chief Diversity Officer at the associa-tion, whose job will be to direct the imple-mentation of the Diversity and Inclusion Plan and the goals of the summit’s Pledge and Plan, and to coordinate efforts with our many partners, including Lawyers Collaborative for Diversity and the Affin-ity Bar Associations.

inclusive concept encompassing gen-der, gender identity, race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, and disability.

We are a richer and more effective as-sociation because of diversity, as it increases our association’s strengths, capabilities, and adaptability. Through increased diversity, our organization can more effectively address member and societal needs with the varied per-spectives, experiences, knowledge, in-formation, and understanding inherent in a diverse relationship.”

• Guided by the policy, the CBA adopted a Diversity and Inclusion Plan with the ultimate goal of fostering a genu-ine, sustainable diverse and inclusive environment within the association, throughout its membership, and the Connecticut legal community. The plan can be found at ctbar.org/Diversity.

• The committee developed a Diversity and Inclusion Template, which is being pushed out to all of the CBA’s sections and committees. Many have already adopted plans and are implementing them. The template can be found at ctbar.org/Diversity.

• The CBA developed and led the first Diversity and Inclusion Summit on Oc-tober 26, 2016 at Quinnipiac University School of Law. Assistant Attorney Gen-eral Christine Jean-Louis led this effort with support from the committee.

• As a result of the summit, 25 law firms, corporations, and other entities have already become signatories to the Pledge and Plan. You may view the sig-natories at ctbar.org/PledgeAndPlan. New signatories are welcome.

• The signatories have met twice and are preparing for the 2017 summit to be held again at Quinnipiac University School of Law on October 25, 2017.

• As CBA president, I endorsed American Bar Association Resolu-tion 113 and the General Counsel Pledge. For more information, visit ctbar.org/Resolution113.

• The CBA initiated and led the ef-fort to pass Resolution 10B con-cerning refugees and asylum seek-

© P

ullm

an &

Com

ley,

LLC

BRIDGEPORT HARTFORD STAMFORD WATERBURY WHITE PLAINS 203.330.2000 860.424.4300 203.324.5000 203.573.9700 914.705.5355

pullcom.com@pullmancomley

We are pleased to announce that Jill D. Bicks has become a Member of our Firm.

Jill D. BicksMember

Family Law Collaborative Divorce203-330-2257 | [email protected]

LAWYERS CONCERNED FORLAWYERS—CONNECTICUT, INC.

If you have ever thought what a relief it would be to talk frankly with a person who is sensitive to problems

like yours…

If you want support to stop using alcohol or other drugs…

If you have ever been concerned aboutsomeone else’s alcohol or drug use…

Use the LCL HOTLINE today…leaveyour first name and telephone number.

Expect a call back…peer support will be made available to you. It’s FREE

and CONFIDENTIAL.

HOTLINE: 1-800-497-1422

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank President-elect Karen DeMeola, Cecil Thomas, and Christine Jean-Louis for trusting me and for their incredible leadership, tireless work, and friendship. We have had anything but an “echo cham-ber” and as a result, we have made better decisions and positioned the CBA to drive diversity and inclusion to new heights. Indeed, we have come a long way and we should be proud, but we have miles to go before we sleep, miles to go before we sleep. CL

http://www.lclct.org/

http://www.pullcom.com/

Visit www.ctbar.org

2017 Fall CLE Programs

SeminarsOctober 3Dividing Retirement Assets in Divorce

October 18Sales of Distressed Companies In and Out of Bankruptcy

November 29CT Probate Assembly and CT Bar Association Probate Seminar

Diversity and InclusionSeptember 14Promoting Diversity & Inclusion: A Look Back and a Way Forward

October 25Diversity and Inclusion Summit

ConferencesOctober 6LegalTech/Law Practice Management Conference

October 20Workers’ Compensation Courtroom Medicine Conference

November 3Bench-Bar Professionalism Symposium

November 10Federal Tax Institute of New England

Elder LawSeptember 28Identifying and Preventing Elder Abuse

November 9Advanced Topics in Elder Law

EssentialsSeptember 19The Essentials of International Trade Law

November 17Practice, Procedure, and Protocol in the Connecticut Civil Courts

The Honorable Maria A. Kahn Receives 2017 Ladder Award

Healthy LawyerSeptember 13Ergonomics in the Workplace: Tips on How to Feel Good and Be Productive

EthicsSeptember 15IOLTA and Law Practice Management: Avoiding Pitfalls

EthicsOpinion

Ethics

Opinion

OpinionEthics

Seminar/Event/etc.Ethics

Connecticut Bar Association

Legal Practice Series4 Connecticut Lawyer Summer 2017

http://www.ctbar.org/events/event_list.asp?show=&group=&start=3%2F21%2F2014&end=&view=&cid=10472


2017 Fall CLE Programs

&Connecticut Bar Association

News Events

The Women in the Law Committee of the Connecticut Bar Asso-ciation (CBA) in asso-ciation with the Young Lawyers Section (YLS) honored Judge Maria A. Kahn of the Supe-rior Court as the 2017 recipient of the Ladder Award. She was pre-sented with the award at the Women in the

Law Committee program “Pathways to Leadership for Women Lawyers,” held on March 23 at the Inn at Middletown.

The Ladder Award was created by the YLS Women in the Law Committee in 2007 to honor a woman attorney who has “left the ladder down” for those women who follow in her footsteps. The award is aimed at recognizing the efforts of women in the profession who have recognized the importance of mentoring and supporting more junior lawyers in their own journeys to success in the profession. The Honorable Maria A. Kahn has joined a distinguished group of female attorneys including: Tanya A. Bovée, Diane W. Whitney, Nada K. Sizemore, Maureen Danehy Cox, Hon. Anne C. Dranginis, Rosemary Giuliano, Kath-leen Brandt, Margaret Deluca, and Elizabeth J. Stewart.

CBA Women in the Law Section Chair Jennifer E. Wheelock welcomed attendees to the inspiring event, before introducing keynote speaker Susan Schmeiser, professor of law at UConn

School of law. Professor Schmeiser revealed that a cover of TIME Magazine inspired her speech on gender ambiguity noting that “questions of leadership and gender are of the utmost urgency.” She concluded with the curiosity of where leadership will come from in a post-binary world sharing, “leadership may come from those who come after rather than who come before, from the young people featured in TIME Magazine.”

Attorney Danielle J.B. Edwards of Cacace Tusch & Santagata in-troduced Judge Maria A. Kahn.

After asking the audience for a moment of silence to recognize those who have helped them in their careers, the Honorable Ma-ria A. Kahn shared her experiences as a child immigrant from Angola, Africa, who 11 years later became a citizen of the United States in 1986 in the Federal Court in Hartford in front of Judge Peter C. Dorsey, who two years later hired her as his law clerk. Judge Kahn noted, “I share my story not to focus on my own ac-complishments but, rather, because my story is one of many that illustrates the greatness of this country.”

As the first female judge of Portuguese descent in Connecticut, Judge Kahn greatly reflected on the importance of mentors and role models sharing, “As leaders in our profession we all must play a part in ensuring that the benefits and opportunities avail-able to us will be there for others to come.” She expressed that mentoring others is not optional for her, but that it is a responsi-bility she has to give back, concluding, “I truly believe that each one of us has an obligation to give back to our community. I guar-antee that it will be one of the most rewarding aspects of your professional experiences.” CL

The Honorable Maria A. Kahn Receives 2017 Ladder Award

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & De-fenders (GLAD) honored Con-necticut State Comptroller Kevin Lembo for his decades of advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ people, children, and families at the “Justice for All” event, held at the Studio at Billings Forge in Hartford.

After advocating public health during the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Comptroller Lembo was appointed as the state’s first Health Care Advocate in 2004, helping thousands of Connecticut resi-dents receive healthcare access.

Currently serving his second term as state comptroller, GLAD reports that he is the first openly gay statewide official in Con-necticut, and has continued to be a strong advocate for fairness and equality for all in the state. CL

GLAD Honors State Comptroller Kevin Lembo for LGBTQ Advocacy

(L to R) Cindy M. Cieslak, YLS Women in the Law Committee chair; Judge Maria A. Kahn; and Daniel J.B. Edwards, Cacace Tusch & Santagata.


The Connecticut Bar Association’s Civics Education Committee held its annual Law Day Celebration on Friday, May 5, 2017 at the Connecticut Appellate Court in Harford. Students from CREC Public Safety Academy in Enfield were joined by CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, Civ-ics Education Committee Chair Ralph Monaco, and committee members Jon Weiner and Kathy Calibey.

Law Day is a national effort to inform citizens about the impor-tance of the law and the role it plays in our everyday lives. This year’s theme, declared by the American Bar Association, was “The 14th Amendment: Transforming American Democracy.”

Students constructed essays based a fact pattern presented to them about a 15 year old boy named Carlos Sanchez who, al-though he was born in the United States, his mother’s visa has expired. Carlos wants to try out for his high school’s soccer team, however, at the request of parents within the school district, in order to participate in any high school athletic team program, students must establish his or her parents’ residency.

CREC Pub-lic Safety A c a d e m y s t u d e n t s were asked w h e t h e r or not they b e l i e v e d that this ordinance is constitu-tional un-der Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The top three essay winners presented their essays to the Appellate Court judges. After their essay presentations, the students ate lunch at the Connecticut State Capitol where they each received citations from Secretary of the State Denise Merrill. CL

CBA Celebrates 2017 Law Day

CREC Public Safety Academy students with CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola, CBA Civics Education Committee Chair Ralph Monaco, and committee member Kathy Calibey.

CREC Public Safety Academy essay winners with CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola and Chief Judge Alexan-dra D. DiPentima.

Gregory D’Auria Appointed as a Supreme Court Associate Justice

Gregory D’Auria was sworn in as an associate justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court after a nomination by Governor Malloy. Justice D’Auria is filling the spot on the bench formerly held by Associate Justice Peter T. Za-rella who retired in December. Justice D’Auria is the third state Supreme Court justice to sit on the bench with-out prior judgeship experience.

Justice D’Auria, a Hebron resident, has worked for the Office of the Attorney General for 23 years, where he served as an assis-tant attorney general, associate attorney general for litigation, and head of the special litigation and charities unit. Attorney General George Jepsen appointed him the state’s first solicitor general in 2011. CL

Governor Malloy Appoints CBA Members for JudgeshipGovernor Dannel Malloy announced his 13 appointments to fill vacancies for judgeships on the Connecticut Superior Court. Of the 13 appointments, eight are CBA members. All have been approved by the General Assembly and have taken their seats in courts thoughout the state.

CBA member nominations include:

1. Barry F. Armata, Brown Pandiris & Scott LLP2. John L. Cordani, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP3. Matthew D. Gordon, Past CBA treasurer; House of Delegates member4. Kimberly A. Knox, Past CBA president; Horton Dowd Bartschi & Levesque PC5. Margaret M. Murphy, CBA Elder Law Section Treasurer6. W. Glen Pierson, Loughlin Fitzgerald PC7. Elizabeth J. Stewart, Murtha Cullina LLP8. Thomas J. Welch, Teodosio Stanek & Blake LLC CL


Pathways to Legal Careers Program Launches

On test Wednesday, May 31, CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola kicked-off the Pathways to Legal Careers: An Access and Opportunity Pipeline Program at the Uni-versity of Connecticut School of Law. More than 125 students from Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School in New London, Hartford Magnet Trinity College Acade-my, Hartford Public High School, and New London High School heard from judges and attorneys about what they do in their current positions, why they pursued a legal career, and what steps students should take to-wards acceptance into law school.

The mission of Pathways to Legal Careers is to connect high school students with legal professionals to devel-op interest in a legal career and establish mentor rela-tionships that will help advance the careers of future young lawyers. The event was the official launch of the program that held events earlier this year.

Justice Richard A. Robinson, Judge Sheila M. Prats, and Judge Kenneth L. Shluger spoke about the different types of laws on a panel moderated by Christine Jean-Louis, chair of the CBA Diversity & Inclusion Summit Committee. Attorneys Margaret I. Castinado, Sheila S. Charmoy, Proloy K. Das, and Denise V. Zamore served on a panel of first-generation citizens, moderated by Garlinck Dumont, chair of the CBA Membership Com-mittee; panelists shared their path to their respec-tive legal careers and the numerous choices of areas of practice. Roberta Frick, Director of Financial Aid, UConn School of Law; Kathy A. Kuhar, Associate Dean of Students, Quinnipiac University School of Law; and Diane Whitney, Pre-law Advisor, UConn School of Law, shared the steps students should take to get into and pay for law school, on a panel moderated by Karen De-Meola, Assistant Dean for Enrollment and Students, UConn School of Law.

Throughout the event, students were reminded of the importance of strong foundational skills such as the ability to read, write, and speak in public, and the need for diversity in the future of the legal profession. Keynote speaker Rebecca Kelly Golfman reminded stu-dents, “the law is all around us. The law impacts almost every aspect of our lives. Because of that we need to make sure the people writing our laws, the people mod-eling our laws, and people shaping our laws represent all of us.” CL

to Legal Careers

(L to R) Karen DeMeola, Assistant Dean for Enrollment and Students, UConn School of Law; Diane Whitney, Pre-law Advisor, UConn School of Law; Kathy A. Kuhar, Associate Dean of Students, Quinnipiac University School of Law; and Roberta Frick, Director of Financial Aid, UConn School of Law.

CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola welcomes students from Hartford and New London.

Keynote speaker Rebecca Kelly Golfman.

Justice Richard A. Robinson, Judge Kenneth L. Shluger, and Judge Sheila M. Prats served on the “What is the Law?” panel, moderated by Christine Jean-Louis, and shared the various aspects of state and federal laws.


CT Attorneys Form First Collaborative Business Dispute Resolution Group in StateFifteen Connecticut attorneys have come together to offer collaborative divorce resolution to the business commu-nity. The newly formed group, Collaborative Business Dis-pute Resolution (CBDR), provides an alternative to litiga-tion, arbitration, and mediation. It is the first of its kind in Connecticut.

With a goal to avoid litigation and save time and money, this collaborative method differs from mediation when one neutral professional works with the parties to resolve dis-putes. The mediator assists in understanding each other’s points of view and developing settlement options. They cannot give legal advice or advocate for either party.

YLS Holds Annual Legislative Breakfast

The CBA YLS held its annual legislative breakfast at the Legis-lative Office Building in Hartford on May 3. Section members met with Attorney General George Jepsen, State Comptroller Kevin Lembo, and State Representatives Christine Conley and Stephanie Cummings at the event.

Both guest speakers, State Representatives Christine Conley and Stephanie Cummings, are practicing attorneys, in the first year of their freshman term, and sit on the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. They spoke about how their training as a law-

(L to R) State Representative Stephanie Cummings, State Representative Christine Conley, CBA YLS Legislative Affairs Director David J. McGuire, CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola, and CBA Vice President Jonathan Shapiro.

Members Making a Difference

The 15 attorneys involved in creating this new type of business dispute resolution are: • David M. Barry, Jr., Jacobs Walker Rice & Barry LLC • Mark Block, Block Janney & Associates LLC • Deborah L. Dorio, Pease & Dorio PC • Bridget C. Gallagher, Brown Paindiris & Scott LLP • Brian T. Henebry, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP • Paul N. Iannone, Rogin Nassau LLC • John L. Laudati, Murphy Laudati Kiel Buttler Rattigan LLC • Frank A. Leone, Leone Throwe Teller & Nagle • David J. Markowitz, Markowitz & Mawhinney LLC • Justin L. Murphy, Kahan Kerensky & Capassela • Nicholas Paindiris, Brown Paindiris & Scott LLP • Michael A. Pease, Pease & Dorio PC • Margaret F. Rattigan, Murphy Laudati Kiel Buttler Rattigan LLC • James M. Saya, Rogin Nassau LLC • Jonathan M. Shapiro, Shapiro Law Offices LLC

yer has helped them focus on issues, look at unintended conse-quences and possibility liabilities, and utilize their negotiating skills to achieve agreement outcomes. Similar to their careers in the legal profession, they both emphasized the importance of fol-lowing through on what you say you will do and sticking to your word.

All of the government officials in attendance encouraged the young lawyers to continue their social and political networking and run for a position in their local town or city government. CL


Peers & Cheers E-mail [email protected] with submissions for the Peers & Cheers section.

Attorneys

The Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) promoted Catherine Bailey to deputy director. Attorney Bailey oversees the orga-nization’s Legal Education Program and Public Policy Program.

Robinson+Cole’s Manag-ing Committee has appointed new leaders to three of their practice groups. Kenneth C. Baldwin will co-chair the En-vironmental + Utilities Group, Gerald P. Dwyer Jr. will chair

the Insurance + Reinsurance Group, and Linda L. Morkan, will chair the Appellate Group.

Andrew P. Barsom has joined Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP as partner. Attorney Barsom focuses his practice within the areas of Banking and Financial Institution Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Landlord-Tenant matters; and Commercial and Personal Debt Collec-tion.

Murtha Cullina LLP welcomes Julia P. Boisvert as an associate in the Health Care Practice Group. Attorney Boisvert assists hospitals, physicians, physician prac-tice groups, social service providers, and other health care providers with a variety of health care regulatory,

corporate, and business issues.

Pullman & Comley LLC has named attorneys Jill D. Blicks and Jonathan A. Kaplan as a members of the firm. Attorney Blicks practices in the area of family law and Attorney Kaplan practices in the area of com-plex commercial litigation and handles a wide range

of business disputes.

Managing Partner of Murtha Cullina LLP, Jennifer M. DelMonico, will receive the “Women in Business” award from the Hartford Business Journal. Each year, this award recognizes remarkable women throughout Central Connecticut who hold leadership roles and make a difference in their organization and commu-nity.

Nuala E. Droney of Robinson+Cole has been elected to the Board of Trustees of the Boys & Girls Clubs in Harford. These clubs serve thousands of the region’s most needy children and teens every year.

Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP wel-comed Gerald L. Garlick and Linda C. Hadley as partners and Craig M. Lovely as a new associ-ate. Attorney Garlick focuses his practice on litigation, Attorney Hadley represents national and

community banks, and Attorney Lovely practices in the areas of foreclosures and collections, creditor’s rights, and real estate.

David M. Green has joined CzepigaDalyPope LLC as a litigation associate. Attorney Green defends and prosecutes will contests, nursing facility collection actions, conservatorships, fiduciary accountings and mismanagement, and elder financial exploitation.

Jessica Grossarth of Pullman & Comley LLC has been inducted into the Connecticut Women’s Basket-ball Hall of Fame, which seeks to honor those who have contributed to the enhancement of women’s bas-ketball in Connecticut, either through participation, service, support, or achievement.

Firms/Organizations

The Law Offices of Elizabeth Edwards has moved their location to 426 Danbury Rd in Wil-ton. Their mailing address and phone number will remain the same. The firm will continue to

offer their services of general practice.

The Center for Children’s Advocacy is pleased to announce the creation of The Arnold Rutkin Scholars Fund, in honor of At-torney Arnold Rutkin. This fund will allow the Center for Chil-dren’s Advocacy to give intensive, legal advocacy for two youth each year as they transition out of DCF care and into secondary education.

The George W. Crawford Black Bar Association honors Cor-poration Counsel for the City of New Haven, John Rose, with the Visionary Award and Shipman & Goodwin LLP Partner Robert Simpson with the Trailblazer Award, at the 40th Annual Awards and Scholarship Dinner.

Robinson+Cole sponsored the Hart-ford Stage’s production of The Absolute Brightness of Leonard Pelkey where man-aging partner Stephen E. Goldman pre-sented a donation check to support the National Conference for Community and Justice. CL

Catherine Bailey

Kenneth C. Gerald P. Linda L.Baldwin Dwyer Jr. Morkan

Andrew P.Barson

Julia P. Boisvert

Jonathan A. Kaplan

Jennifer M. DelMonico

Stephan E. Goldman

Jessica Grossarth

Nuala E. Droney

Gerald L. Garlick

Linda C. Hadley

Craig M. Lovely

David M. Green


When your pension plan administration begins to sour, simplify with our integrated pension outsourcing program:

Easy peasy

• Online tools• Knowledgeable service center• Real time data and calculations• Paperless documents• Fully customizable

Get your cold glass of easy at hhconsultants.com/easy

www.business.uconn.edu/complianceBuild integritythrough compliance

GRADUATE CERTIFICATE INCORPORATE & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

UConn’s School of Business and School of Law are jointly offering a new graduate certificate in corporate & regulatory compliance. Whether you are a business compliance professional or an attorney, this certificate can help you:

- Manage compliance at a new level. - Get perspective from lawyers and businesspeople. - Develop value-added compliance programs. - Stay ahead of crisis.

We will teach you not only how to conform to the rules, but how to build a values-driven culture.

http://hhconsultants.com/

http://www.budkofskyappraisal.com/

http://www.business.uconn.edu/


For more information, please contact:

Robert L. Holzberg, Chair 860.424.4381 [email protected]

David P. Atkins 203.330.2103 [email protected]

Anne C. Dranginis 203.330.2246 [email protected]

Andrew C. Glassman 860.541.3316 [email protected]

Lynda B. Munro 203.330.2065 [email protected]

Gregory F. Servodidio 860.424.4332 [email protected]

Ronald C. Sharp 203.330.2148 [email protected]

James T. Shearin 203.330.2240 [email protected]

H. William Shure 203.330.2232 [email protected]

BRIDGEPORT HARTFORD STAMFORD WATERBURY WHITE PLAINS 203.330.2000 860.424.4300 203.324.5000 203.573.9700 914.705.5355

Providing mediation, arbitration and related ADR services in:

• Complex civil matters including personal injury, employment, construction, environmental, probate, insurance, financial and business transactions

• All family and matrimonial matters, including financial, custody and parenting disputes

• Medical, legal and accounting practice and business organization breakups

• Appellate matters in state and federal courts

Judge Lynda B. Munro (Retired)Judge Robert L. Holzberg (Retired)Appellate Judge Anne C. Dranginis (Retired)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice

pullcom.com@pullmancomley

Bring your game

The University of Alabama School of Law offers LL.M. programs in taxation and business transactions. Renowned professors and practitioners teach courses live from across the country. Earn your advanced degree online and gain championship status.

Online ProgramsSchool of Law

OnlineLLM.ua.edu/ct

with an LL.M. in Tax or Business.

http://www.pullcom.com/

http://bamabydistance.ua.edu/landing/llm-degrees/index.php?utm_source=georgia-bar-journal&utm_campaign=llm&utm_medium=print&utm_content=vanity-url

12 Connecticut Lawyerr Summer 2017 Visit www.ctbar.org

Nearly 400 guests were in attendance at the April 13 event held at the Aqua Turf Club in Plantsville. The evening began with cocktails, a local craft beer tasting, and hors d’oeuvres.

At the start of the program, attendees heard from State Senator Richard Blu-menthal who not only congratulated this year’s awardees, but also thanked the judges of Connecticut, and of the nation, for their advocacy for legal ser-vices, stating, “When the history of this time is written, I guarantee it will be one of the finest hours of our judiciary in the state of Connecticut and our nation.”

The program began with the Half-Cen-tury Awards, given to members of the bar admitted in 1967.

Kicking-off the awards presentation was The Honorable Anthony V. DeMayo Pro Bono Award. The award’s namesake, Judge DeMayo, was passionate about the law and unwavering in his support of legal services for the needy. The win-ners of this year’s awards, as selected

by the Pro Bono Committee, not only exhibit commitment and dedication to pro bono service, but also serve as role models for the profession. Video tes-timonials were played for each award winner to give the audience members a better sense of who they are and their dedication to their work.

Next, the Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, who congratulated awardees, naming them “the best of our profes-sion, compassionate, and people who are committed to the rule of law,” as well as thanked the Connecticut Bar Association for the partnership with the Office of the Secretary of the State on working together on civics education, expressing that, “it is the foundation for all of us, for the next generation to un-derstand the importance of the rule of law.”

After dinner, video testimonials con-tinued for the signature awards, which were played prior to their award ac-ceptance, adding a personalized touch

to the honor. Signature award present-ers included President Monte Frank, President-elect Karen DeMeola, Vice President Jonathan Shapiro, as well as YLS Chair Dana Hrelic who presented the Young Lawyers Section Vanguard Award.

Many awardees thanked more than just their friends and families, including the Tapping Reeve Legal Educator Award winner, Professor Sudha Setty who, among her many thanks included the CBA, sharing, “I’d like to offer a per-sonal note of thanks for the role that the CBA played which they did not know, in me becoming a lawyer in the first place…I participated as a lawyer in the Mock Trial Program in the 1990s, and that galvanized a love of the study of law that has never abated.”Among this year’s tremendous slate of stars was Newtown First Selectman E. Patricia Llodra, recipient of the Distin-guished Public Service Award. Presi-dent Monte Frank introduced the first selectman emotively, stating, “Pat is

Leanna Zwiebel is the associate editor of Connecticut Lawyer magazine as well as the communications

and editorial associate at the Connecticut Bar Association.

By Leanna Zwiebel


my client, she’s my friend, and she’s my hero. When darkness descended upon the town of Newtown, Pat stood up holding the torch, and led us all out of those troubled days.” And after a stand-ing ovation from attendees, First Select-man Llodra expressed, “If I have done a good for others, than I say thank you for that opportunity. If I have sacrificed, which I have; if I had to draw and re-serve some courage and tenacity, which I have; if I’ve had to set aside hurts, and manage disappointments, which I have; I say that it is a worthwhile legacy to have made even a small positive differ-ence in the lives of others.”

Event attendees welcomed the final awardee of the evening, Justice Richard A. Robinson, to the stage with a stand-ing ovation. Within his thank you re-marks, Justice Robinson included all of the lawyers in the room, expressing, “As lawyers, you are the very tailors of the fabric that holds our society together. We are living in interesting and troubling times. There are events occurring now

and on the horizon that will stretch that fabric beyond its tearing point. But as lawyers you, no we, bear the tremen-dous responsibility of being there when the tears occur.”

The evening concluded with dessert and cordial pairings, along with music and dancing. The fourth annual “Cel-ebrate with the Stars” was a resounding success.

Thank you to our sponsors:

Headline SponsorKronholm Insurance Services

Gold SponsorsCohen and Wold PCRobinson+ColeWestern New England University School of Law

Supporting SponsorsCarmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP

Gordon & Rees LLPNew Haven Legal Assistance AssociationSouth Asian Bar AssociationWolf & Shore LLC CL

Photos:

1. 2017 Celebrate with the Stars Signature Award winners. (L to R) Dwight H. Merriam, Louis R. Pepe, Shelley White, Daniel J. Foster, Edward M. Kweskin, Bret Kupfer, E. Patricia Llodra, Eileen Jenetopu- lous, Shari-Lynn Cuomo Shore, Peter Arakas, Anne Stanback, Sudha Setty, Justice Richard A. Robinson, and Richard W. Callahan.

2. Henry J. Naruk Judiciary Award winner Justice Richard A. Robinson.

3. Event attendees listening to award winner speeches.

1.

2. 3.


Photos:

1. Citizen of the Law Award winner Peter Arakas.

2. CBA President Monte E. Frank with Senator Richard Blumenthal.

3. YLS Chair Dana Hrelic, YLS Vanguard Award winner Shari- Lynn Cuomo Shore, and CBA Vice President Jonathan M. Shapiro.

4. CBA President Monte E, Frank, CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola, Anthony V. DeMayo Pro Bono Award winner Eileen Jenetopulos, and Pro Bono Awards Committee Chair Adam Cohen.

5. Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.

6. Henry J. Naruk Judiciary Award winner Justice Richard A. Robinson and former Associate Justice Justice Peter T. Zarella.

7. Charles J. Parker Legal Services Award winner Shelley White.

8. Attendees dancing after the awards ceremony.

9. Tapping Reeve Legal Educator Award winner Professor Sudha Setty.

10. CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola; Citizen for the Law Award winner Anne Stanback and her wife Charlotte Kinlock; and Jamie Mills, State of Connecticut Senior Advisor for Policy Analysis.

11. CBA President Monte E. Frank, CBA President-elect Karen DeMeola, Distinguished Public Service Award winner E. Patricia Llodra, CBA Vice President Jonathan M. Shapiro, and CBA Awards Committee Co-chairs Moy Ogilvie and Bill Prout.

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

7. 8.

10. 11.


Henry J. Naruk Judiciary AwardJustice Richard A. RobinsonConnecticut Supreme Court

Distinguished Public Service AwardE. Patricia LlodraFirst Selectman of Newtown

Charles J. Parker Legal Services AwardShelley WhiteNew Haven Legal Assistance

Citizen for the Law AwardAnne StanbackLGBT/Civil Rights Activist

Citizen of the Law AwardPeter ArakasAttorney at Law

Edward F. Hennessey Professionalism AwardLouis R. PepeMcElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

John Eldred Shields Distinguished Professional Service AwardDwight H. MerriamRobinson+Cole

Tapping Reeve Legal Educator AwardSudha SettyProfessor of Law, Western New England University School of Law

Young Lawyers Section Vanguard AwardShari-Lynn Cuomo ShoreWolf & Shore LLC

The Honorable Anthony V. DeMayo Pro Bono Award

Richard W. Callahan Law Office of Richard W. Callahan

Daniel J. FosterCity of Waterbury Corporation Counsel’s Office

Eileen Jenetopulos Law Office of Eileen Falsey Jenetopulos LLC

Bret KupferACCEL Law Group PC

Edward M. KweskinWofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP

Awar

dees

6.

9.


Over 1,200 attorneys, judges, parale-gals, and other legal professionals from throughout the state gathered on June 12 at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford for the sold out 2017 Connecti-cut Legal Conference. The day began with a networking breakfast, which included alumni receptions for Quinnipiac, UConn, and Western New England law schools, giving attendees the opportunity to con-nect with colleagues and classmates be-fore heading to the day’s first education session.

This year’s conference featured over 40 CLE seminars across four different tracks with topics ranging from issues involv-ing the opioid crisis in Connecticut, to sustaining diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as well as practice manage-ment programs on how to be more ef-ficient in the age of distraction and what to expect when you make the decision to open your own firm.

Among the 11 seminars that began the day, Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty, along with State Representatives Rosa Rebim-bas and Sean Scanlon, and Dr. Daniel To-

bin of Yale Medical School in New Haven, spoke about the opioid crisis in Connecti-cut to over 70 seminar attendees, inform-ing them about the crisis and what is being done to help. Congresswoman Eliza-beth Esty addressed these issues, stating, “There needs to be a lot more research in this country. It’s very hard to measure pain management; it’s highly subjective, which is part of the reason we are in this situation.”

The CBA Annual Luncheon and Meeting recognized judges taking trial referee status as well as held the installation of the 2017-2018 officers, including the 94th President of the CBA Karen DeMe-ola, President-elect Jonathan M. Shapiro, Vice President Ndidi N. Moses, Secretary Alaine C. Doolan, Treasurer Vincent P. Pace, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Dana M. Hrelic, and Immediate Past President Monte E. Frank.

Guests were welcomed by CBA Member-ship Committee Chair Garlinck Dumont, followed by remarks from Chief U.S. Dis-trict Judge Janet C. Hall regarding updates to the district court, and Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers on the biggest changes in

CBA Hosts Sold Out Connecticut Legal Conference

the civil courts, including the opening of mediation centers.

Special guest speaker, Incoming Dean of Yale Law Heather Gerken, gave an inspir-ing speech on the positive role of lawyers in the changing world and how to help create a diverse profession by getting young attorneys practice ready, stating, “We want people to live greatly in the law. There’s no point in studying the world, you need to be in the world as well.”

Immediately following the final session of seminars, the President’s Reception, sponsored by UConn Law School Alumni Association, was held for all attendees to mingle with colleagues and discuss the day’s events as well as the year to come, over cocktails and an assortment of appe-tizers.

The CBA would like to thank all those that helped make the Connecticut Legal Con-ference a great success—the attendees, the exhibitors, and the sponsors, particu-larly Platinum sponsors Kronholm Insur-ance Services, CATIC, and Merrill Lynch; and Gold sponsor UConn Law School Alumni Association. CL

Save the Date2018 Connecticut Legal Conference June 11

CBA officers (L to R): Outgoing President Monte E. Frank, Treasurer Vincent P. Pace, Incoming Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Dana M. Hrelic, Incoming Secretary Alaine C. Doolan, Incoming President Karen DeMeola, Incoming Vice President Ndidi N. Moses, Incoming President-elect Jonathan M. Shapiro, Outgoing Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Emily Graner Sexton, and Outgoing Secretary Sylvia K. Rutkowska.

Leanna Zwiebel is the associate editor of Connecticut Lawyer magazine as well as the communications

and editorial associate at the Connecticut Bar Association.

By Leanna Zwiebel


The CBA’s 94th President

Karen DeMeola is the assistant dean of students for the Uni-versity of Connecti-cut School of law. In addition, Attorney DeMeola imple-ments and manages diversity program-

ming as well as professional and commu-nity development activities for students. Prior to her role as assistant dean of stu-dents, she was a civil rights litigator in her solo practice.

Attorney DeMeola is recognized as an expert in several areas and has present-ed on numerous panels, conferences, and symposia on diversifying law school populations; implicit bias; intersetionality; inclusive leadership; and diversity and in-clusion more broadly. She has also served as an adjunct professor at UConn School of Law teaching Critical Identity Theory.

In recognition of her leadership, Attorney DeMeola was the recipient of the Lawyers Collaborative for Diversity’s, Edwin Archer Randolph Diversity Award; the CT Wom-en’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) Maria Miller Steward Award; the Connecti-cut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Constance Baker Motley Award for Business or Law; the UConn Spirit Award; and the UConn Women’s Center’s Women of Color Recognition Award for Outstanding Contribution to the University of Connecticut and for Excel-lence in Leadership, Achievement, and Service.

Attorney DeMeola has created numer-ous pipeline programs, including the new CBA program, Pathways to Legal Careers: An Access and Opportunity Pipeline Pro-gram. This program is designed to provide insight about the law and the legal profes-sion to high school students with the hope of encouraging talented and diverse stu-dents to consider a legal career. The kick-off to the program was on May 31, 2017 at UConn School of Law.

Pre-conference Mindfulness Session with Walt Hampton.

Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty discussing the opioid crisis in Connecticut.

Attendees checking in prior to a seminar.

Hon. Peter T. Zarella, Hon. Christine E. Keller, and Hon. Michael R. Sheldon participating in an oral argument.

Attendees enjoying snacks during a session break.

https://www.law.uconn.edu/


Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers. Professor Sudha Setty discussing executive orders.

Inside the annual luncheon and meeting.Then-CBA President Monte E. Frank presenting plaques to officers who’ve completed their 2016-2017 terms: Secretary Sylvia K. Rutkowska and Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Emily Graner Sexton.

Incoming CBA Vice President Jonathan M. Shapiro, Incoming CBA President Karen DeMeola, Incoming Dean of Yale Law School Heather Gerken, and Outgoing CBA President Monte E. Frank.

Robert Ambrogi discussing artificial intelligence. Incoming CBA President-elect Jonathan M. Shapiro, Outgoing Secretary Sylvia K. Rutkowska, and Garlinck Dumont.

Heidi Alexander discussing how to be more focused and efficient.

Outgoing President Monte E. Frank installing Karen DeMeola as the new CBA president.

Attendees engaged in one of the day’s many CLE seminars.


As Monte indicated, this year has been a year of many successes for the CBA and for our members. We played a significant role in the Task Force to Improve Access to Legal Counsel in Civil Matters, and will continue to play a role in the implemen-tation of some of the recommendations contained in the taskforce report. Our sec-tions and committees kept our lobbyist Bill Chapman and our Legislative and Policy Review Committee busy by supporting legislative actions to protect refugees, ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth, ensure the right to civil counsel in cer-tain domestic cases, protect against the threatening of judges, LLC Act, and oth-ers, too many to name. We will continue to be active in legislative initiatives and policies that impact our practice and the communities that need access to, and the protection of, the judicial system.

We have participated with the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s Pro Bono Colloquium on next steps and will be a continued part of addressing the ways in which pro bono service can help the access to justice problem.

Our education team, under the direction of Suzanne Hard, continues to produce and develop new and innovative programs. We are steering the conversation around di-versity and inclusion, and we have a more engaged membership that will bring us into the future.

The CBA leadership team has commit-ted, for the long-term, to work toward and continue to play a role in advocating for access to justice, the rule of law, and di-versity and inclusion in the profession.

In Connecticut, the greatest immediate challenge we face is the potential erosion of access to justice brought about by the state’s prolonged fiscal crisis. We must vigorously guard against trends that may lead to a two-tier system of justice that favors citizens who possess the time and financial resources necessary over those who do not enjoy those same advantages. In addition, a system that favors or disfa-

vors a party to an action, a witness, juror, staff member, or an attorney based on their identity is one that should be chal-lenged.

The three cornerstones, along with, of course, our constitutional mission, guide us. But we have more work to do. As James Baldwin aptly stated, “The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side.”

For years, I have taught and counselled students and attorneys about identity. I start each year talking about authenticity and maintaining a sense of self and well-ness to new law students. All of my coun-sel centers on wellness and professional-ism and the importance of the narrative. The narrative not only of the individual but the ability to convey the narrative of future clients. It is in this vein that I approach my role with the CBA; what is the current nar-rative and what do we want it to be.

Diversity in the legal profession, as you all now know, lags behind all other profes-sions. We have come further in our diver-sity efforts than I thought possible but we are now ready for the next steps.

Access to the profession continues to be onerous for many. For some, going to law school is a dream, and for others it is, or is perceived to be, out of reach. Our diversity and inclusion efforts will explore such bar-riers from entry to law school and thereaf-ter to the profession.

One way to increase diversity is to in-crease the pipeline. To that end I created, Pathways to Legal Careers, a pipeline and mentorship program aimed at recruiting prospective students from diverse and marginalized communities into the legal profession. The Pathways kick off on May 31 saw participation from the branch, lo-cal, and affinity bar associations. The program has the potential to increase the pipeline to our law schools but we can-not stop there. Challenges with respect to inclusion, accommodations for dis-

abilities, mental health issues, economic difficulties, and other factors often create additional barriers. Focusing on access to the profession is an essential next step for our diversity efforts. We cannot just hope for diversity without taking steps to seed our system, and grow future generations of potential lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals, who truly represent the diversity of our state’s population.

Many of us have seen the impacts of ad-diction on our friends and family. Lawyers are not immune to addiction and as a group have higher rates of mental health concerns than other professions. Partner-ships with Lawyers Concerned for Law-yers, the Dave Nee Foundation, and oth-ers to provide support and training will help not only with access but also with simply taking care of each other.

Our membership is strong and engaged thanks in part to our membership chair, Garlinck Dumont. Our largest groups are our young lawyers and our solo and small firm attorneys. Engaging members from these groups will help drive initiatives and programming moving forward. We must be relevant to our YLS in particular as they are the future of the profession and most certainly the future of the CBA.

As I attended meetings, meals, and events hosted by local and affinity bar associa-tions as well as sections and committees it was quickly apparent that each entity has its own feel; its own identity and its own sense of pride. I am hopeful that a year from now, more attorneys in our state will, like you, feel that sense of pride for the CBA. We are doing and will continue to do great things. We will advocate for the needs of all lawyers, make sure citizens of the state understand the importance of lawyers in their lives and work to ensure that the rule of law and access to justice are realized. The profession will become a reflection of all of us.

I am proud and honored to serve as your next president and look forward to being part of our narrative. Happy Pride! CL

The following is an excerpt from Incoming President Karen DeMeola’s 2017 CBA Annual Luncheon and Meeting


For the better part of a decade, munici-palities across the country have seen an increase in the amount of short term rent-als within their borders. Websites, such as Airbnb.com, provide travelers with the opportunity to find alternative vaca-tion lodging and experience a community from within a neighborhood, instead of out of a hotel room. But travelers are not the only ones benefiting from the growth of short term rentals; income earned by “hosts” who make their property avail-able for rent online is an attractive eco-nomic incentive.

Connecticut residents have shared in the benefits of the growth of this use. Accord-ing to the Hartford Business Journal, over

64,000 travelers paid a visit to our state in 2016 via Airbnb alone, with hosts earning over $11 million from their guests.1

New Haven saw the highest number of guests, with 11,500 visitors. Hartford, which recently enacted zoning regula-tions specifically addressing short term rentals, welcomed 3,700 guests.2 Com-munities in Fairfield County saw less traf-fic than their neighbors to the North, but still hosted a healthy number of visitors, with 1,000 travelers coming to Bridge-port, and 2,000 to Stamford.3 In addition, Connecticut collected a hotel tax of 15% from each of these transactions, and local restaurants and shops gained thousands

of potential new customers.

From a zoning and land use perspective, short term rentals are unique in that they possess both “residential” and “commer-cial” characteristics. Courts in other ju-risdictions have been asked to determine whether short term rentals are one or the other. Regardless of definition, munici-palities within Connecticut, and across the country, have enacted zoning controls to ensure the appropriate growth of this emerging use.

Residential or Commercial Use?Courts have reached varying conclusions when asked to determine whether or not a short term rental is a residential or com-

The Rise of AirBnB and Short Term Rentals: Implications for Local Zoning RegulationsBy Jason A. Klein

Jason A. Klein is an associate at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP.

http://www.carmodylaw.com/


mercial use. Courts that have found short term rentals to be commercial uses have focused on the economic benefit realized by the property owner. In Kentucky, an appellant, who rented their property as a short term rental, argued that earning in-come from each rental, and paying a com-mercial tax, did not make the rental of his home a “business use.”4 The Kentucky Court of Appeals found these characteris-tics were indicative of a commercial use, rather than a residential use.5 The Ken-tucky Court of Appeals went on to state that it is not the conduct of the guests on a property, who may be using the lot in the same way a permanent resident or long term tenant would, that determines the use of the property; Instead, “it is the fact that the property is being held out for remuneration [by the property owner] in much the same manner as a hotel or mo-tel,” that governs the classification of the use.6

Similarly, the Court of Appeals of San An-tonio, TX found the payment of state and municipal hotel taxes by the Appellant persuasive in reaching its conclusion that the property, which was rented 31 times from June to October of 2014, was being used for commercial purposes.7

Other courts have not found these com-mercial traits determinative in classify-ing this use. For example, the Supreme Court of Washington State recently held that a property owner’s “receipt of rental income [from short term rental guests]…in no way detracts or changes the resi-dential characteristics of the use by the tenant.”8 The Court went on to find that where “a vacation renter uses a home ‘for the purpose of eating, sleeping and other residential purposes,’ this use is residen-tial, not commercial, no matter how short the rental duration.”9

Regulating Short Term Rentals Whether one considers short term rentals residential or commercial, they continue to enjoy growing popularity. Rather than engage in the difficult task of prohibiting short term rentals within their borders, many municipalities have enacted zoning regulations to guide growth. Communi-ties that have embraced short term rentals often do so understanding the economic opportunity it provides to residents and

taxpayers. The Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission recently amended the city’s zoning regulations to permit short term rentals, subject to conditions that aim to ensure compatibility with surrounding residences. Professor Sara Bronin, chair of the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission, said the commis-sion recognized that many residents “deal with high maintenance costs and prop-erty taxes. While short-term tenants can help property owners pay for these costs, it is important that regulations address neighbors’ concerns, too.”

1. PermitsA threshold question to any set of short term rental regulations is whether a mu-nicipal permit is required to operate a short term rental, or if one may do so as of right. Many municipalities, including Hartford, require a host to obtain a zon-ing permit before operating a short term rental on their property.10 Nashville, TN, also requires that any property owner seeking to use their dwelling unit as a short term rental obtain a permit to do so.11 On the other hand, individuals in Philadelphia, PA, who make their dwell-ing unit available as a short term rental for less than 91 days annually, may do so without a municipal permit or approval.12 Similarly, those seeking to utilize a dwell-ing unit for short term rental purposes in Jersey City, NJ need not obtain a permit to do so, unless they are using more than five (5) separate dwelling units as short term rentals.13

2. Time LimitationsTenant turnover is a common concern with regard to short term rentals. In re-sponse, some regulations limit the num-ber of days a dwelling unit, or property, may be used for short term residential purposes. Hartford allows properties to be used as short term rentals for “no more than 21 cumulative days during any 6 month period, with no property being used for such temporary rental more than 3 times during any 6 month period.”14 In-dividuals may seek permission to operate a short term rental for a greater number of days, or a higher frequency, by obtain-ing special permit approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.15 As a prerequisite to obtaining a special per-

mit approval, an applicant is required to notify neighboring property owners of the pending application, and the commis-sion must hold a public hearing to provide both the applicant and the greater public an opportunity to be heard. Similarly, residents of dwelling units in Philadelphia may use their units as short term rentals for 91 – 180 days per year, upon obtain-ing a permit to do so.16

Estimates show that on average, a Con-necticut dwelling unit listed on Airbnb is used as a short term rental 32 nights per year.17 Limiting the number of days a dwelling unit or property may be used as a short term rental arguably helps to en-sure that the short term rental of a prop-erty remains an accessory, rather than primary use. Without such cap, zoning enforcement could be left to determine, on a case by case basis, whether or not the short term rental of a given dwelling unit or property is an accessory or pri-mary use.

3. DensityOvercrowding of apartments or homes with short term rental tenants is another common concern associated with short term rentals. Municipalities have attempt-ed to address this by implementing densi-ty controls limiting the number of guests in a short term rental at any given time. Hartford permits only “4 adults (in total) and minor children related to at least one of the adults by blood, marriage, adoption custodianship or guardianship” in a short term rental.18 Additionally, there must be a minimum of 70 square feet of usable floor area for one person, and an addi-tional 50 square feet of usable floor area for each additional person (including chil-dren) in the unit being used for short term rental purposes.19 Nashville, TN also lim-its the number of guests permitted to stay in a short term rental, requiring that the number of transients not exceed “more than twice the number of sleeping rooms [in a dwelling unit] plus four.”20 Under the Nashville regulations, short term rent-als may only contain up to four sleeping rooms, which in turn, could accommodate up to 12 guests.21

(continued on page 36)


The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently was called upon to construe a Maine overtime wage statute. The litigation arose because of a poten-tially missing “serial comma” (also known as an “Oxford comma”).1 The absence of a comma in 26 Maine Rev. Stat. Section 664(3)(F) led to uncertainty over wheth-er certain delivery truck drivers were or were not exempt from Maine overtime statutes. Specifically, because of the miss-ing comma, it was unclear whether truck drivers who deliver dairy products with-out also packing those products for ship-ment are entitled to overtime. A Maine overtime exemption applies to certain employees engaged in “canning, process-ing, preserving, freezing, drying, market-ing, storing, packing for shipment or distri-bution” (emphasis added) of agricultural produce, meat and fish products, and per-ishable foods. The district court decided that the absence of a comma before the words “or distribution” did not alter the fact that the words “packing for shipment or distribution” were intended to be the final two separate items in a list (so that the words should be interpreted as “pack-ing for shipment, or distribution” and not as “packing for either shipment or distri-bution), citing to the general requirement in Maine’s Legislative Drafting Manual that no comma be used to separate the fi-

nal two items in a list.2 Under the district court’s analysis, because the truck drivers distributed perishable foods (even if they did not pack such foods for shipment), they fell within the overtime exemption.

The Court of Appeals reversed, noting the general Maine rule that an ambiguity in a wage and hour statute should be con-strued in workers’ favor. The phrase in question is ambiguous not only because of a possible inferred or implied comma, but also because the word “distribution” does not end with “ing” (and therefore does not appear to be a continuation of a list that starts with “canning, processing, preserving” and that appears to end with “packing”). Thus, the overtime exemption should be construed narrowly, to apply to a smaller group of workers, not a larger group. Using this approach to legislative construction, the Court of Appeals re-manded the case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff truck drivers “engage in neither packing for shipment nor packing for distribution…. If the drivers engage only in distribution and not in any of the standalone activities that Exemption F covers […] the drivers fall outside of Exemption F’s scope and thus within the protection of the Maine overtime law.”

The fact that legal entitlement to overtime

could depend on the presence or absence of a single comma in a statute caused this particular First Circuit decision to receive unusual attention in the popular press.3 The presence or absence of a final com-ma in a series or list within a statute was also considered significant by the Texas Supreme Court in a 2016 decision award-ing attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defen-dant in a First Amendment anti-“SLAPP” (“strategic lawsuit against public par-ticipation”) case.4 The pertinent Texas statute entitled the prevailing defendant in such a case to an award of (inter alia) “court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in defend-ing against the legal action as justice and equity may require.” The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “as justice and equity may require” did not modify “reasonable attorney’s fees,” in large part because of the comma immediately after “reasonable attorney’s fees.”

The presence or absence of a final comma in a list may also impact interpretation of a contract or other legal document.5 In-terestingly, Connecticut’s legislative draft-ing guidelines are similar to Maine’s with respect to the use of commas in a list: “do not use a final comma in a series” un-less each item in the series is numbered.6 However, the Manual of Style for the Con-necticut Courts recommends using the fi-

The Case of the Missing Comma


nal comma in a series to avoid ambiguity that could otherwise arise: 7

The use of an Oxford or serial comma before a conjunction between the last two terms of a series is the preferred style (in accordance with Strunk & White and the Chicago Manual of Style), but is within the author’s discretion. A comma should be used if the meaning of the sentence is not clear without it or if it prevents ambiguity.

The Manual of Style for the Connecticut Courts includes the following example of ambiguity that may arise if this final “se-rial” or “Oxford” comma is not used:

The defendant became concerned that Kennedy might harm Christine, Daniels and Kennedy’s daughter.

Problem: Is the defendant concerned for three individuals—Kennedy’s daughter, Christine, and Daniels—or one individual—Christine, who is the daughter of Daniels and Kennedy?

Even where ambiguity does not arise, the Manual of Style recommends using the serial or Oxford comma (and includes several examples, including the list “Red, white, and blue”—the same example used in the Oxford University Press (OUP) au-thor style guidelines).8 This is a situation

where the Judicial Branch’s position with respect to the serial or Oxford comma may be preferable to the approach appar-ently used by the Legislative Commission-ers’ Office.9 CL

Notes1. See O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d

69 (1st Cir., March 13, 2017) (Docket No. 16-1901), copy available at http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1901P-01A.pdf. See also Oxford University Press (OUP) Instructions for Authors—House Style (“The serial or Oxford comma is a hallmark of OUP house style and must be used in both British and US style.”), copy available at https://global.oup.com/aca-demic/authors/author-guidelines/house-style/?lang=en&cc=gb.

2. See Maine Legislative Drafting Manual (rev. through August 2009), Part III, Chap-ter 4, Section 2.A., copy available at http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/manual/Draft-man2009.pdf (“when drafting Maine law or rules, don’t use a comma between the penultimate and the last item of a series”).

3. See, e.g., “Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute,” Daniel Victor, New York Times (March 16, 2017) and “A Few Words About that Ten-Million-Dollar Serial Comma,” Mary Norris, The New Yorker (March 17, 2017).

4. See Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Texas 2016) (construing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 27.009(a)(1)).

5. See, e.g., Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC, 587 F.Supp.2d 594, 606 n.11 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (construing a disput-ed provision of a shareholders agreement where “the omission of the serial comma in the Shareholders Agreement definition of ‘control’ accounts for much, if not all, of the confusion here”).

6. See “Basic Considerations in Drafting Legislation,” Legislative Commissioners’ Office (rev. October 2015) at page 9, copy available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/lco/pdfs/Basic%20Considerations%20in%20Drafting%20Legislation.pdf

7. See The Manual of Style for the Connecti-cut Courts (3rd edition 2013), Office of the Reporter of Judicial Decisions, Section IV.A.(4), copy available at https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/Manual_of_style.pdf

8. The OUP author style guidelines (n. 1, supra) also state that “[i]n a list of three or more items, insert a comma before the ‘and’ or ‘or’.” A book review in a 1996 issue of the Connecticut Bar Journal noted with approval the authors’ or editor’s “good grammar, even to the extent of putting a comma before ‘and’ in a series of nouns and after state names in the middle of a sentence.” See W. Barrante, Book Review, “No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America” (by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith), 71 Conn. Bar J. 227 (1996).

9. The Connecticut General Statutes do include a few provisions where the serial or Oxford comma appears to have been used. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 46b-115ee and 45a-667m(b).

The Case of the Missing CommaBy Elizabeth Yen

Elizabeth C. Yen is a partner in the Connecticut office of Hudson Cook, LLP, head-quartered in Maryland. She is admitted to practice in Con-

necticut only. Ms. Yen is a fellow of the American College of Consumer Finan-cial Services Lawyers, a past chair of the Truth in Lending Subcommittee of the Consumer Financial Services Com-mittee of the ABA’s Section of Business Law, a past chair of the CBA Consumer Law Section, and a past Treasurer of the CBA. The views expressed herein are personal and not necessarily those of any employer, client, constituent or affiliate of the author.

https://www.hudsoncook.com/


Overlooked Insurance Aspects of Bicycle and Recreational Accidents

Edward Monico, MD, JD graduated from Quinnipiac Law School where he concentrated his studies in the area of

health law and received recogni-tion in that area. He is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale School of Medicine.

Seth Powsner, MD teaches Emergency Medicine and Psychiatry residents, and advanced medical students at Yale

School of Medicine. He has been on faculty over 30 years and has been medical director of the Crisis Intervention Unit within Yale-New Haven Hospital’s Emergency Department since 2000.

By Edward Monico, MD, JD and Seth Powsner, MD

https://medicine.yale.edu/

https://medicine.yale.edu/


Introduction Emergency medicine physicians are well acquainted with bicycle accidents. Even those new to the field have seen or heard of sudden down-hill stops ejecting bicy-clists over their handle bars leaving bro-ken collar bones, or cars striking couriers in traffic, or overconfidence felling ado-lescents too cool to wear helmets. While emergency medicine physicians may be well versed in medical conditions stem-ming from a combination of bicycle plus gravity plus pavement, they may be less familiar with later ramifications these mishaps have for their patients. The aca-demic literature is replete with physician-sponsored attempts to reduce cycling-related accidents. However, cyclists also may suffer insurance and other legal consequences from recreational and ama-teur cycling activities, e.g., charity bicycle races.

Insurance ConsiderationsInsurance can protect against some sud-den, large financial losses (liability) in return for more palatable, regular, con-trolled financial losses (premiums). There are basically two types of insurance: the kind that you should have and the kind you should consider having. Professionals should have health, life, homeowner’s or renter’s, auto, disability, and professional liability insurance and should consider travel insurance and umbrella policies. While the mishaps each insurance policy covers can be roughly derived from the policy’s name, the wording of the policy determines the exact coverage provided. When events occur that fall outside spe-cifically covered events or are not antici-pated by insurance policy drafters, policy-holders may find themselves exposed.

Legal ComplicationsBicycles are complicated from a legal point of view. What exactly is a bicycle? Legislators might write “two wheeled ve-hicles powered by their riders.”1 But is the device still a bicycle if two training wheels are attached for a total of four wheels? Suppose a child trailer is attached which

adds one or two wheels? (Trailer style carriers add two wheels; tandem style child carriers add one wheel; second seat or luggage rack style carriers add no wheels.) It is not easy to draft a set of rules covering bicycles, tricycles, and per-haps unicycles.

Electric motors further complicate mat-ters. Electric pedal-assisted bicycles (pe-delecs) made the news recently for their health benefits even though their motors reduce the total exercise.2 Pedelecs only augment their riders’ pedal power: stop pushing the pedals around and the mo-tor stops rotating too. However, there are other types of electric bicycles: throttle-assisted ones require only pressure on a thumb throttle. And, with larger and larger motors, when do electric bicycles become electric mopeds or motorcycles?

Bicycle fairings or shells are another com-plication. With an aerodynamic shell, a cyclist with the University of Toronto’s team pedaled 89 miles per hour on a flat, straight course at Battle Mountain, Nevada.3 Reasonably fit adults pedaling commercially available velomobiles, can exceed 30 miles per hour.4

A U.S. Bicycling Participation Bench-marking Report estimated as many as 103.7 million Americans rode bicycles in 2014.⁵ Unfortunately, over 900 bicyclists were killed and there were an estimated 494,000 emergency department visits due to bicycle-related injuries in 2013 in the US.⁶ What about an accident on a charity ride or while competing in a lo-cal race that awards one or more prizes? Who will be covered for liability and if so by what insurance policy? How will they fair under their local laws?

Exact insurance policy wording can be-come an issue depending on the injured cyclist’s emergency department notes. Explicitly documenting in the patient’s chart that a weekend accident occurred during a charity “race” might alert a claims agent. Explicitly documenting “the patient hit a pothole while cycling down-

town between package deliveries” may raise worker’s compensation and related issues, especially if a personal insurance policy excludes business and commercial claims.

Third party injury and property damage claims may also implicate cyclists. Clashes between the insurance industry and hob-byists are not unique. Mountain climbing, skydiving, B.A.S.E jumping and extreme watersports (white water rafting, power boat racing) are activities often deemed too inherently dangerous for routine per-sonal insurance policies. However, some other activities are enjoyed for stress re-duction and health benefits, despite their inherent perils, which may not be on an insurance adjuster’s black list. In 2013 a toy helicopter decapitated its teenage pi-lot in Calvert Vaux Park in Brooklyn, New York.⁷ A 44-year old woman died after one of her poisonous snakes bit her. ⁸ (Po-lice found at least nine poisonous snakes, lizards and alligators in her modest two-story home.) The BBC News reported in 2003 an 11-year-old boy was killed by a remote control airplane after its pilot and owner lost control of it from a nearby park in Colony Heath, Hertfordshire, England.⁹

Local laws involving cycling and all its facets vary widely. Bicycling under the in-fluence may or may not even be a crime. Helmet requirements are probably the next most variable, even if emergency department staff consider their use a no brainer. Some jurisdictions prohibit bicy-cles on sidewalks; some make exceptions for young children. Some jurisdictions re-quire bicyclists stay to the far right side of the road; however, others have revised laws to make allowances for left turns. At least one recumbent tricycle rider reports being stopped and cited for lack of a flag for visibility (the top of some recumbent bicycles is lower than the hood of many cars).¹⁰

Cycling in ignorance and violation of your local laws increases the risk of personal liability in the event of an accident. Argu-ably, bicycle versus pedestrian, and bicycle


versus other bicycles (race or sight-seeing tour) lead to the greatest liabilities: not all cyclists wear helmets and very few pedes-trians do. But, even passing too close to a luxury car can leave scratches leading to a body shop bill for over $1,000. Fortunate-ly, many homeowner insurance policies cover liabilities and medical costs related to covered personal property, and most homeowner policies consider bicycles to be covered personal property. However, the deductible may exceed the insured value of less expensive bicycles.

Recreational ComplicationsWhen technological advances outpace insurance policy drafters, the question of whether an event or mishap is covered could fall between the cracks. Whether an event involved a covered item of personal property could be called into question. Case in point—hoverboards.

We can start with a hoverboard’s explo-sive capability—and we’re not talking speed. Allegedly, the lithium-ion batteries that power these boards have a tendency to burst into flames while being ridden, some while plugged-in and charging, and still others while just sitting there. Hover-boards have been implicated in 11 fires in 10 states. If a hoverboard fire were to burn down your house, the good news is the fire damage to your house and cov-ered contents are probably covered by your homeowners insurance.11,12,13 How-ever, homeowners’ policies typically ex-clude coverage for “motor vehicles not required to be registered” unless “used solely to service an insured’s residence” or “designed to assist the handicapped.” Replacement of your charred hoverboard might not be covered. Perhaps more im-portant, any liability you incur while rid-ing your hoverboard, or some other rec-reational self-propelled vehicle, might not be covered.

While not as dramatic, but no less con-fusing, purchasing a new bicycle with an electric assist motor vastly complicates insurance coverage matters. Electric bi-cycles are not legal on public thorough-fares in some locales. Even where they are legal, some homeowners’ policies read “[personal] property not covered: mo-tor vehicles...” and “motor vehicle means a self-propelled land or amphibious ve-

hicle.”14 Electric bicycles with a thumb throttle, even if they meet U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission requirements for low-speed electric bicycles,15 are self-propelled—they can legally reach 20 mph without the rider touching the pedals. Pedelecs are not so obviously self-pro-pelled—their electric motors only pro-vide assistance to pedal motion.

Potential SolutionsUmbrella insurance coverage can fill some of the gaps between homeowners and auto insurance liability coverage. Howev-er, guard against focusing only on excess liability coverage, i.e., protection against unusually large claims for mishaps that exceed dollar limits on homeowners or auto coverage. Electric bicycle riders may also need true umbrella coverage: cov-erage for mishaps falling in the gaps be-tween their other policies. Read the fine print. Beware a policy that excludes “use of ‘autos’, ‘recreational motor vehicles’ or watercraft while they are being oper-ated in, or practicing for, any prearranged or organized race, speed contest or other similar competition.” It is critical to un-derstand the insurance company’s defini-tion of ‘recreational motor vehicle.’

While the medical profession seeks to mitigate injury through research, the in-surance industry protects their insureds through the creation and sale of more types of specialty policies. Bicycle insur-ance policies are now available. Boating is common enough that it can be covered by special purpose or umbrella policies. In-surance for private airplanes is available. The American Modelers’ Association can provide liability coverage for model air-plane and helicopter mishaps. What’s in your policy? CL

Notes1. Life & Casualty Insurance Company of

Tennessee v King 71 Southern Reporter 2d 131 (1953)

2. Peterman JE, Morris KL, Kram R, Byrnes WC. Pedelecs as a physically active trans-portation mode. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Aug;116(8):1565-73.

3. International Human Powered Vehicle Association http://www.ihpva.org/hpva-recl.htm#nom1m1 [accessed 2016.11.17 23:25 UTC]

4. Frederik Van De Walle Masters Thesis 2004, Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm The Velomobile as a Vehicle for more Sustain-

able Transportation Reshaping the social construction of cycling technology table 2, page 59 http://users.telenet.be/fietser/fotos/VM4SD-FVDWsm.pdf [accessed 2016.07.19 17:35 UTC]

5. U.S. Bicycling Participation Bench-marking Report http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/7b69b6010056525bce_ijm6vs5q1.pdf [accessed 2016.11.17 23:30 UTC]

6. CDC: Bicycle Safety (part of Injury Preven-tion & Control: Motor Vehicle Safety) https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafe-ty/bicycle/ [accessed 2016.11.17 23:35 UTC]

7. Tracy T, Sandoval E, Hutchinson. “Queens man, 19, killed by model helicopter shared passion for remote-controlled fliers with father,” New York Daily News, Sept 6, 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/teen-killed-remote-controlled-helicopter-slices-throat-article-1.1447068 [accessed 2016.11.17 23:40 UTC]

8. Forgrave, R. Woman killed by her pet viper: suburban neighbors unaware of what lived nearby. Enquirer. Sept 12, 2004. http://www.enquirer.com/edi-tions/2004/09/12/loc_loc4ssssnake.html [accessed 2016.11.17 23:40 UTC]

9. BBC News: Model plane death ‘an ac-cident.’ Nov 2, 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/503181.stm [ac-cessed 2016.11.17 23:45 UTC]

10. Jenkins A. My Crime? Riding A Bicycle On A Public Street. http://www.averyjenkins.com/blog/701?rq=bicycle [accessed 2017.03.19 17:00 UTC]

11. “Insurance Coverage Nightmare: What I Hope the Clients Didn‘t Buy Their Kids for Christmas or Hanukkah Present.” Irene Morrill, CPCU, CIC, ARM, CRM, CRIS, LIA, CPIW, Vice President of Technical Affairs, Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents, 91 Cedar Street, Milford, MA 01757

https://www.massagent.com/info/tt122015.pdf [accessed 2016.10.05 21:00 UTC]

12. “Christmas night fire in New Ha-ven blamed on toy hoverboard.” As-sociated Press. 2016.12.26 08:19am. WTNH Connecticut News. http://wtnh.com/2016/12/26/christmas-night-fire-in-new-haven-blamed-on-toy-hover-board/ [accessed 2017.03.12 15:00 UTC]

13. “3-year-old girl dies after fire blamed on recharging hoverboard.” ABC News, 2017.0312 2:57pm. WTNH Connecticut News. http://wtnh.com/2017/03/12/3-year-old-girl-dies-after-fire-blamed-on-recharging-hoverboard/ [accessed 2017.03.12 15:00 UTC]

14. “Homeowners 3 – Special Form,” Insur-ance Information Institute http://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.pdf [accessed 2016.10.05 21:00 UTC]

15. See 15 U.S.C. Section 2085 and 16 CFR Sec-tion 1512.2(a) as amended by 68 Fed. Reg. 7072 (February 12, 2003).

Renew Today

Connecticut Lawyer Summer 2017 27Log in at ctbar.org or contact us at (844)469-2221 or [email protected].

Renew Your

Membership Today!

“This is a people profession—we serve people, we work with and alongside and sometimes in opposi-tion to people. At the end of the day, no matter our roles, we all share the same goals, and that is the pursuit of truth and justice. Being able to have a group where we can learn and grow from each other onlyhelps us all come together in furtherance of those goals.”Carmina K. Tessitore HirschThe Law Offices of Carmina K. Tessitore, Esq LLC

“CBA sections have given me a chance to develop connections with attorneys in a variety of practice areas, engage in educational events that expand my skills as an attorney, and participate in opportunities to volunteer and give back to the larger community.”Claire HowardMadsen Prestley & Parenteau LLC

“The value of the CBA is evident with its educational programming and many intangible benefits. It has allowed me to forge incredible relationships with other attorneys which has helped me become a better attorney and generate referrals.”Jonathan M. ShapiroShapiro Law Offices LLC

Stay Connected with Your CBA Legal CommunityRenew Today

http://www.ctbar.org/?


TIME TO GO PRO BONO

Just four short years after the first Emeritus Small Claims Vol-unteer Attorney Program (VAP) launched in the Hartford Judi-cial District, the partnership between the Connecticut Bar As-sociation and the Judicial Branch has produced two additional Small Claims Volunteer Attorney Programs in the Middletown and New Haven Judicial Districts with aspirations for additional programs in other court locations.

Bolstered by revisions to Practice Book § 2-55 that became ef-fective on January 1, 2014, the Emeritus Small Claims VAP held 848 advice sessions in 2016 with just 14 volunteer attorneys, most of whom are retired or semi-retired. Practice Book § 2-55, subsection (e) provides: “An attorney who has retired pursuant to this section may engage in uncompensated services to clients under the supervision of an organized legal aid society, a state or local bar association project, or a court-affiliated pro bono pro-gram.” This rule opened the door for retired attorneys, possibly our legal profession’s most valuable and underutilized source of pro bono hours and expertise, to dedicate themselves to the cause of pro bono.

With the ever increasing demand for low cost and free legal services, the Small Claims Volunteer Attorney Programs play a critical role in bridging the access to justice gap for Connecti-cut litigants in our small claims courts. These programs pro-vide self-represented parties with an opportunity to meet one-on-one with retired volunteer attorneys to discuss their legal problems at no cost. For Connecticut’s self-represented parties in our small claims courts, these advice-only programs, and the pro bono attorneys who participate in them, can provide calm in the face of crisis; normalcy in the midst of extraordinary circum-stances; and deliberate, measured steps where there might oth-erwise only be confusion. Retired lawyers can help. They have a wealth of legal knowledge and practical skills, the desire to use their talents to contribute to those with unmet legal needs and the determination to remain engaged with their colleagues in the legal community.

The rising number of self-represented parties directly correlates

to an increasing level of unmet legal needs among Connecticut individuals and families. The CBA, in conjunction with the Judi-cial Branch, has created flexible pro bono programs that allow retired lawyers to allocate their time so they can provide pro bono services while still pursuing other interests. “This is about the most rewarding pro bono work I have done,” said retired at-torney and small claims volunteer, Peter Arakas. “Our clients re-ally appreciate the help we provide. My wife and I like to travel, and the flexibility of this project is perfect for me.”

The Small Claims VAP provides advice and counsel to unrepre-sented small claims court litigants around the state. The com-mentary to Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) states in relevant part that volunteer attorneys form a limited relationship with their clients only for the period of time they meet for consultation, and have no on-going obligation to repre-sent or advise the client after the end of the session. Volunteers sign up for two-hour sessions several times throughout the year. Participating attorneys can volunteer as often or as little as they would like, there is no minimum time commitment. No prior litigation experience is necessary to be a very effective coun-selor to these clients.

The CBA provides training for small claims volunteer attorneys who participate in the program and also provides malpractice coverage. Operating in the Hartford, Middletown, and New Ha-ven Judicial Districts, the small claims programs have proven to be very satisfactory for both retired attorney volunteers and the clients who have used the service. “Planning for retirement, I desired to provide pro bono legal services,” said retired volun-teer attorney William J. Anderson. “The Small Claims Volunteer Program provided needed training and support. Based on direct client feedback, the advice [self-represented parties] receive provides value and the work is very rewarding.”

In order to gauge the efficacy of the program, the CBA and the Judicial Branch administer a satisfaction survey to the self-rep-resented parties who are assisted by the small claims volunteer

By Krista Hess and Peter ArakasKrista Hess has been the program manager at the Connecticut Judicial Branch for 10 years. Peter Arakas was the former General Counsel for LEGO Systems, Inc. prior to retiring in 2010.

Retired Attorneys: Bridging the Pro Bono Gap


MCLE is Easy with the CBA!

Connecticut Lawyerr May/June 2017 29


Education PortalEarn MCLE credits from the comfort of your home or office—any platform, any time! All programs are New York accredited.

Complimentary On-Demand ArchiveAccess audio recordings of prior CLE seminars—Free for members.

Visit ctbar.org/EducationPortal for a full list of on-demand programs.

Free CLE Credit Tracker for MembersDon’t waste time guessing how many CLE credits you have earned. Let our Professional Development Journal track them for you at ctbar.org/CLETracker.

In-Person SeminarsHigh-quality seminars presented all over the state, by Connecticut lawyers, for Connecticut lawyers.

ctbar.org

MCLE is Easy with the CBA!

http://ctbar.mycrowdwisdom.com/diweb/catalog


SUPREME DELIBERATIONS

Relating Back, or the Doctrine of How Close Is Close Enough?By Charles D. Ray and Matthew A. Weiner

Charles D. Ray is a partner at McCarter & English LLP, in Hartford. He clerked for Justice David M. Shea during the Supreme Court’s 1989-1990 term and appears before the Court on a regular basis. Matthew A. Weiner is Assistant State’s Attorney in the Appellate Bureau of the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney. ASA Weiner clerked for Justice Richard N. Palmer during the Supreme Court’s 2006–2007 term and litigates appellate matters on behalf of the State.

Any views expressed herein are the personal views of DASA Weiner and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney and/or the Division of Criminal Justice.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C., ___ Conn. ___ (2017) brings us an entertaining explanation and ap-plication of the “relation back” doctrine, a valuable wrench in the toolkit of plain-tiffs that, if properly used, allows a case to conform to discovery without worry about statute of limitations issues that might otherwise deep-six a new theory of a case. In a nutshell, the relation back doc-trine allows a plaintiff to avoid the stat-ute of limitations where amendment of the operative complaint makes a change in, or an amendment to, an act of negli-gence that arises out of the group of facts that was originally claimed to produce injury to the plaintiff. As the Court puts it, “Our relation back doctrine provides that an amendment relates back when the original complaint has given the party fair notice that a claim is being asserted stemming from a particular transaction or occurrence, thereby serving the objec-tives of our statute of limitations, namely, to protect parties from having to defend against stale claims…”

The issue, as you can imagine, in relation back cases is how close the relation must be between the new theory and the one

contained in the original complaint. Are we talking siblings here? Or will second cousins thrice removed be close enough to avoid the statute of limitations? The Court doesn’t answer those particular questions, but does make a concerted ef-fort to bring some clarity to both the doc-trine itself and to the scope of review that an appellate court will engage in when considering the decision of a trial court in its application of the doctrine.

Briere provides an excellent example of the doctrine at work. The plaintiff ’s original action claimed that he suffered injuries caused by the defendants dur-ing the course of a spinal surgery. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant doctor had failed to plan or perform a safe and effective operation. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the doctor was negligent in his use of a skull clamp to secure the plaintiff during surgery. Six months before the statute of limitations ran, the defendants asked the plaintiff to revise his complaint, to more fully explain how the defendant doctor had failed to properly plan or perform a safe and effective operation. The plaintiff objected to the request to revise and the trial court sustained that objection, once

again, prior to expiration of the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff next disclosed a neurosur-geon as a testifying expert and indicated that the expert would testify that the de-fendant doctor “had been negligent when he improperly placed a retractor blade during surgery.” The defendants deposed the plaintiff ’s expert and then, after the statute of limitations had expired, the plaintiff sought permission to amend his complaint. In his proposed amendment, the plaintiff removed his theory regard-ing the skull clamp and replaced it with his expert’s theory about the retractor blade. The defendants objected, claiming that the new retractor blade theory did not relate back to the original complaint and was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the defendants’ objection.

Next up, the defendants moved for sum-mary judgment, on the theory that the plaintiff had no expert on the original claim dealing with the skull clamp. Refus-ing to give up without a fight, the plain-tiff filed a motion in limine, asking the trial court to allow his expert doctor to testify on the theory related to the re-tractor blade, notwithstanding the trial

Connecticut Lawyerr Summer 2017 31

court’s denial of his attempt to amend the complaint to include that theory of negligence. In its ruling on the motion in limine, the trial court refused to allow tes-timony from the plaintiff expert, at which point the plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that the trial court’s rulings on his request to amend and motion in limine were inconsistent with its prior ruling on his objection to the request to revise. For good measure, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court’s rulings were fundamentally unfair but had nothing to say about his original claim regarding negligent usage of the skull clamp.

Not surprisingly, the trial court granted summary judgment, holding that with-out a testifying expert on the issue of the skull clamp, the plaintiff could not prevail. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the trial court had improperly de-nied the plaintiff ’s request to amend his complaint and had improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the defen-dants. The Appellate Court based its hold-ing on its conclusion that the trial court had improperly applied the relation back doctrine and, specifically, “that the retrac-tor blade allegations related back to the original theory that [the defendant doc-tor] was negligent during the surgery, as found in the allegations that [he] had failed to plan or to perform a safe and ef-fective surgery.” The Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings (presumably including an amendment to the complaint).

Before the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that the Appellate Court had im-properly concluded that the allegations regarding proper planning and conduct of the operation were independent from the allegations regarding the skull clamp. According to the defendants, the original allegations about planning and perfor-mance “cannot stand alone because they are conclusory in nature and merely in-troduce the skull clamp allegations that form the factual basis for the plaintiff ’s claim.” Thus, according the defendants, the “proposed amended allegations re-garding the retractor blade do not relate back because they are an entirely differ-ent theory of negligence.” The Supreme Court affirmed the Appel-

late Court. On the ultimate result, the Court was unanimous. They had, however, a bit of disagreement from Justice Robin-son on what standard to apply to review of the trial court’s application of the rela-tion back doctrine. But let’s set that aside for the moment and concentrate on how the Court looked at and applied the rela-tion back doctrine. Writing for the major-ity, Chief Justice Rogers began with a de-scription of the doctrine, which included the following nuggets:

• A party properly may amplify or ex-pand what has already been alleged in support of a cause of action, provided the identity of the cause of action re-mains substantially the same.

• If an amended complaint contains a new cause of action, it will “speak” as of the date when it was filed.

• A change in, or an addition to, a ground of negligence or an act of negligence arising out of the single group of facts which was originally claimed to have brought about the unlawful injury to the plaintiff does not change the cause of action.

• It is proper to amplify or expand what has already been alleged, but when an entirely new and different factual situ-ation is presented, a new and different cause of action is stated.

Having explained a number of prior cases as illustrations of the doctrine, the Court nonetheless acknowledged that in prior cases, it “perhaps [has] not provided as much clarity as necessary for the trial court to apply the doctrine consistently.” Making that task more difficult, however, the Court also noted that determining “what the original cause of action is re-quires a case-by-case inquiry by the trial court.” Recognizing that the original alle-gations should be construed neither too narrowly nor too broadly, the Court also admitted that “a bright line rule would not serve the purpose of promoting sub-stantial justice for the parties.” Factors to be considered by the trial court include whether the new allegations contradict the original and whether the original and new allegations involve the same actors, the same time period, the same location, the same injury, the same types of be-havior, and require the same types of evi-dence and experts.

It was this factor-based analysis that led to Justice Robinson’s concurrence. To start, the majority declared that the de novo standard of review always applies to a re-viewing court’s determination of whether a proposed amendment relates back to the original complaint. The basis for the majority’s conclusion was its observation that the exercise is one of comparing the original pleading to the proposed amend-ment, something that the reviewing court can do just as well as the trial court. For Justice Robinson, however, the introduc-tion of a number of factors into the equa-tion could well take a trial court beyond a mere comparison of the proposed amend-ment to the original complaint. In addi-tion to the specific factors relied on by the majority, Justice Robinson also noted that potential prejudice and delay are just as salient in the relation back inquiry as they are in a trial court’s decision whether to permit an amendment in the first place. That being the case, Justice Robinson dis-agreed that de novo will “always” be the appropriate standard of review in a case calling for review of a trial court’s appli-cation of the relation back doctrine. In Briere, however, the defendants did not argue that the timing of the proposed amendments or the nature of the proof required supported the trial court’s deci-sion to deny the request to amend. Thus, Justice Robinson concluded that “the ma-jority properly analyze[d] this pleadings based appeal as a pure question of law.”

Although the Court admirably attempted to bring clarity to a murky topic, we sus-pect that trial courts will continue to find it difficult to discern how best to separate a relation back inquiry from a decision on whether to allow an amendment in the first place. Reviewing courts will likely also struggle to keep the two separate. For example, if a trial court denies a motion to amend on the basis that the relation back doctrine would make amendment a futile act, will the reviewing court treat that de-cision as one of discretion or one of law? As always, stay tuned for more, but we’re afraid that murk just might be an inherent part of this territory. CL


Highlights from RecentSuperior Court Decisions

COURT DECISIONSThe following highlights are provided by the publishers of The Connecticut Law Reporter. For copies of these opinions or infor-mation about the reporting service, call (203)458-8000. All citations are to the weekly edition of the Con-necticut Law Reporter.

ContractsGeriatrics, Inc. v. McGee, 63 CLR 713 (Mor-gan, Lisa K., J.), holds that neither the common-law nor statutory cause of ac-tion for fraudulent conveyance applies to a transfer by a third party with control over a debtor’s assets, including a transfer of a nursing home resident’s assets to a person assisting in the transfer. The opin-ion holds that a transfer of the assets of a nursing home resident by the resident’s child to reimburse the child for services provided to the resident, rendering the resident unable to pay the nursing home, does not violate either the Act or the com-mon-law cause because the conveyance was not by “the debtor.” The opinion ac-knowledges that there are strong public policy arguments in favor of preventing third parties from removing assets from the estate of an impaired nursing home resident, but concludes that the plain lan-guage of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act requires the holding in this case.

A jury waiver clause in an agreement is binding on guarantors under a separate guaranty agreement executed as an inte-gral part of the same transaction. Inland Southeast New Britain, LLC v. Ogulturk, 63 CLR 586 (Markle, Denise D., J.). The opin-ion holds that a waiver clause contained in a lease agreement is binding under a guaranty agreement executed as part of the lease transaction, even if such a clause is not expressly referenced in the guar-anty.

The Home Improvement Act does not ap-ply to a contractor’s unjust enrichment claim against a residence owner for im-provements made at the request of a po-

tential buyer, because the owner was not a party to whatever contract existed be-tween the contractor and the buyer. The owner’s HIA defense therefore is invalid. Property Management & R.E. Services, LLC v. Hilton, 63 CLR 567 (Povodator, Kenneth B., J.)

Corporations and Other Business OrganizationsRandolph v. Dreyfus, 63 CLR 512 (Brazzel-Massaro, Barbara, J.), holds that the provi-sion of the Limited Liability Company Act terminating membership in an LLC upon a member’s filing of a petition for “reor-ganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief,” CGS ╦34-173(a)(4), applies only to debt reorganization proceedings filed on a member’s own behalf and not to a member’s petition for a dissolution pursuant to CGS ╦34-207 (authorizing any member to apply for the dissolution on the grounds that “it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business”). The defendant in this action for dissolution brought by another member unsuccess-fully argued that the filing of the petition automatically terminated the plaintiff ’s status as a member and therefore elimi-nated the plaintiff ’s standing to prosecute the action.

In an action brought by a shareholder to dissolve a closely-held corporation in which the corporation and/or other shareholders have opted to purchase the petitioner’s shares, as authorized by CGS ╦33-900, no adjustment should be made to the corporation’s value based on the lack of liquidity on the open market of partial ownership interests in closely held

corporations (known as a “marketability” discount”), in the absence of special cir-cumstances or an attempt by the dissent-ing shareholder to exploit the transaction to gain an unfair advantage. R.D. Clark & Sons v. Clark, 63 CLR 650 (Shortall, Joseph M., J.T.R.). For earlier opinions concern-ing the valuation of these shares see 63 CONN. L. RPTR. 75 and 63 CONN. L. RPTR. 83 (Shortall, Joseph M., J.T.R.).

Driving Under the InfluenceGayle v. Commissioner, Department of Mo-tor Vehicles, 63 CLR 283 (Huddleston, Sheila A., J.), holds that the mailing of a no-tice of decision in a DUI license suspension proceeding, the event which commences an operator’s 45-day time limit for filing a court appeal, is governed, not by the APA appeal provision which requires that no-tice be delivered by certified mail with a return receipt, CGS ╦4-180(c), but rather by the special appeal procedure provided by the Motor Vehicle statutes which re-quires only that mail be delivered by “bulk certified mail,” CGS ╦14-227b(h), a more limited service that does not provide for a return receipt. Therefore in a license suspension proceeding there is no means to conclusively establish that an operator has not received notice of an adverse de-cision, even though the appeal period be-gins upon mailing. This opinion dismisses a late appeal based solely on evidence that the notice of suspension was deliv-ered to the post office for delivery by bulk certified mail even though the defendant claims to have never received the notice.

Employment LawCommissioner of Labor v. Efficient Light-ing Consultants, Inc., 63 CLR 687 (Noble,


Cesar A., J.), holds that the doctrine that statutes of limitations are not applicable to claims by the state unless expressly al-lowed by statute applies to actions by the Commissioner of Labor brought on behalf of employees against employers to recov-er unpaid wages.

In an action by a restaurant waiter against an employer for violation of the Connecti-cut Minimum Fair Wage Act in which the employer has relied on the provision of the Act which reduces the employer’s minimum wage obligation for hours dur-ing which an employee is performing ser-vices for which gratuities are “customari-ly and regularly “ received, CGS ╦31-60(b)(1) (referred to as an employer’s “tip credit”), the employer’s failure to comply with its obligation to maintain sufficient records to segregate time spent on ser-vice and nonservice tasks does not create a presumption in favor of an employee that all work was performed on nonser-vice tasks for which no credit is available. Stevens v. Vito’s by the Water, LLC, 63 CLR 502 (Elgo, Nina F., J.).

Harrison v. Superwinch, LLC, 63 CLR 721 (Calmar, Harry E., J.), holds that although in general severance pay does not consti-tute “wages” within the meaning of the Connecticut Wage Statute, CGS ╦31-72, payments of additional compensation upon termination pursuant to an employ-ment agreement which were accrued while performing pre-termination ser-vices may constitute wages, regardless of whether the payments were categorized as wages in the agreement. This opinion holds that a provision of an employment agreement requiring that the employee be paid six months base salary upon wrong-ful termination, “in accordance with the regular payroll procedures,” is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the payment constitutes “wages.”

The award of a right to severance payment and stock options to an employee, subject to loss upon a termination for cause, does not create an implied contract to contin-ued employment. Boullie v. Covidien, L.P., 63 CLR 483 (Peck, A. Susan, J.T.R.). The opinion strikes a breach of contract count of the employee’s wrongful termination complaint against the employer. Note that

the employee presumably can recover the severance pay and stock options if the ter-mination was not for cause.

Crowley v. Fullmer, 63 CLR 622 (Bates, Timothy D., J.), holds that in an action originally asserting a claim against an em-ployer for vicarious liability for injuries from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of an employee while engaged in the performance of em-ployment duties, an amendment adding a claim for negligent hiring, training and supervision does not relate back to the fil-ing of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes.

Health LawDoe v. Abriola, 63 CLR 335 (Huddleston, Sheila A., J.), holds that there is no private cause of action under Connecticut law for a medical provider’s negligent release of a patient’s medical records, including, as in this case, a claim for the negligent release of confidential HIV-related information. The defendant responded to a patient’s simultaneous requests that a “release to

work” be faxed to the patient’s employer and a copy of the patient’s entire medical file be faxed to the patient, by accidentally reversing the directions: the release was faxed to the patient and the medical re-cord was faxed to the employer.

Indian LawSlater v. Magellan Terminal Holdings, LP, 63 CLR 467 (Blue, Jon C., J.), holds that although a defendant in a tort ac-tion lacks standing to bring a third-party complaint against a plaintiff ’s insurer to enforce coverage on behalf of the plaintiff, such a defendant may bring a third-party complaint against the insurer seeking to enforce a claim that the defendant is an additional insured under the plaintiff ’s policy. The opinion holds that a property owner who has been sued by an invitee for injuries from a fall while the claimant was in the course of employment with a third party may bring a third-party com-plaint against the insurer of the plaintiff ’s employer to establish that the defendant is an additional insured under the em-ployer’s policy. CL

CT NAELA is an active, agile organization that makes a difference every day in the lives of Connecticut’s elderly population.

Join us in the fight!

Visit http://www.ctnaela.org/join-us for more information

Marketing guidance

Weekly updates

Mentoring

Free and discounted CLE

Connecticut’s seniors need your help more than ever. And so do we.

The Connecticut Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys

http://www.ctnaela.org/join-us/


YOUNG LAWYERS

Dana M. Hrelic is the Chair of the Connecti-cut Bar Association Young Lawyers Section for the 2016-2017 bar year. She is also the chair-elect of the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division for the 2016-2017 bar year. She is a partner at Horton Shields & Knox PC in Hartford, where she focuses her practice on Connecticut state and federal appeals. She graduated with distinction from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2005 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Political Science and from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2008 with a Juris Doctor degree.

vocating on behalf of others. He proudly and relatedly explained how he decided to go to law school and the process he undertook to become a judge. It was clear that many students identified with both judges. They not only took notes during the presentation, but also asked many thoughtful questions of the judges, who candidly spoke of recent difficult cases, offered advice for litigants, and discussed the importance of upholding the law, even when it requires putting aside your moral opinions.

During the symposium’s third set of pan-el discussions, the students had an op-portunity to meet and hear from several young lawyers who practice law in varied contexts and settings. For example, they heard from Allison Cantor, an associate principal counsel of ESPN, as well as Sara Greene, a prosecutor with the State’s At-torney’s Office, and Garlinck Dumont, a principal of her own firm, Dumont Law LLC. The students’ questions ranged from the types of classes that the attorneys found helpful in law school, to the num-ber of hours spent at work every day, and to the kinds of mentors that have helped them achieve their current positions. Their questions were insightful and rel-evant. This opportunity was also special for the young lawyers involved, because it allowed them to teach others about their job and to offer advice on how to achieve success in the future. It also allowed them to talk a little about how much they love

On Wednesday, March 24, with over 100 students in attendance from four differ-ent high schools, the Young Lawyers Sec-tion successfully hosted its second Pre-Law Symposium at Quinnipiac University School of Law in Hamden. This program was first held by the Young Lawyers Sec-tion in 2015 under the leadership and guidance of past Chair Emily Graner Sex-ton, and I am proud to note that it has become a flagship community outreach event for our section.

The goal of the symposium is to educate and inform local high school students about law school and the legal profession, and to encourage them to consider pursu-ing a career in the law one day. The stu-dents, who were predominantly in their high schools’ mock trial programs and AP government classes, began their day

with a “Law School Panel,” which focused on the law school admissions process and the law school student experience. Kathy Kuhar, associate dean of students at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and Karen DeMeola, CBA president-elect and UConn School of Law assistant dean for enrollment and students, were joined on the panel by two current Quinnipiac Uni-versity School of Law students—2L Jona-than Aubin and 3L Kelvin Owusu. Most students in the room furiously took notes while Dean Kuhar and Dean DeMeola gave advice for potential law school ap-plicants, what to write their essays about, and what to emphasize in their applica-tions. Students also listened closely while Mr. Aubin and Mr. Owusu discussed what college courses prepared them for law school, what classes they are taking now, and what advice they had for students considering attending law school.

The students then heard from two sitting Connecticut judges, Appellate Court Judge Raheem Mullins and Superior Court Judge Antonio Robaina. Both judges spoke about what inspired them to join the le-gal profession. Judge Robaina explained that he always knew he wanted to be an attorney, and he felt blessed to have prac-ticed law with his father for so long be-fore joining the bench. Judge Mullins, on the other hand, admitted he didn’t always want to be an attorney but spoke of expe-riences he had growing up that inspired him to want to make a difference by ad-

2017 CBA Young Lawyers Section Pre-Law SymposiumBy Dana M. Hrelic

https://www.hdblfirm.com/


their jobs, which the students were very happy to hear. The students ultimately learned that a legal career is not limited to practicing law in a courtroom or pros-ecuting criminals (which many students acknowledged is what they have learned about the law from television), and that a JD can prepare you for success in many different types of jobs in the future. It was an incredibly rewarding experience to be a part of this session, for both the students and the young lawyer panelists involved.

The final panel of the day allowed the stu-dents to hear from CBA President Monte E. Frank and the Executive Director of the ACLU-CT, David McGuire, on relevant and timely issues concerning the law in today’s news. They addressed topics like President Trump’s travel ban, laws sur-rounding the police’s use of dashboard and body cameras, and the fight against gun violence in their communities. Both panelists discussed the importance of getting involved and exercising your voice in your community, and urged students to think not only about how they can give back by going to law school, but also about how they can give back now. It was an inspirational experience to watch doz-ens of high school students ask questions

about what the law means, how it affects them and their local communities, and what they can do to change things. The symposium ended with the uplifting mes-sage that as members of our communi-ties, whether we are lawyers or students thinking about becoming lawyers, we can make a difference—and we should try.

NAELA AD

2017

Presented by the Connecticut Bar Association’s Estates and Probate Section and Tax Section

Join us for this comprehensive educational event with national speakers presenting on cutting edge tax and estate planning issues. November 10, 2017Saint Clements Castle, Portland, CT

Registration Opens September 4th!

Embezzlement. Fraud. White-collar crime. Business Litigation. Unfortunately, these are very real aspects of today’s business environment.

Fortunately, we eliminate the question marks to help uncover the truth.

Forensic Accounting Services, LLCPiecing together financial puzzles®

“So, where’d the money go?”

2389 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033 | 860-659-6550

Learn how at: www.ForensicAccountingServices.com

®

As chair, I am proud to report that this year’s Pre-Law Symposium was success-ful in achieving its primary goal of edu-cating high schoolers about pursuing a legal degree and choosing a career in the law. The Young Lawyers Section is proud to house this important program and looks forward to continuing it in years to come! CL

http://www.forensicaccountingservices.com/

http://www.cbafederaltaxinstitute.com/


attorneys and the response has been over-whelmingly positive:

“This service is very helpful for those who could not afford an attorney. They really prepare you for courtroom.”

“I feel this service is a definite need for the public. I am very grateful to be able to have many questions answered. The attorney was patient, answered all questions, and was very informative. Thank you so very much for this service.”

The CBA and the Judicial Branch are grate-ful for the continued support and dedica-tion of the volunteer attorneys and their sustained commitment to providing pro bono services to those in need. Plans to expand the program are currently under-way. Anyone interested in volunteering for this program should contact Krista Hess at the Judicial Branch at [email protected] or (860)263-2734, x3043.

Besides the small claims pro bono pro-gram, retired lawyers can get involved in the many other pro bono opportunities available in Connecticut. A descriptive list of these opportunities can be found on the “Pro Bono Portal” at http://pro-bono.ctlawhelp.org/. The portal provides detailed information on a number of pro bono opportunities in many different practice areas. Lawyers are encouraged to browse the portal to find the pro bono opportunity that works best for them. CL

4. AccountabilityCritics of short term rentals are quick to argue that short term tenants are more likely than permanent residents, or long term tenants, to engage in behavior that is disruptive to a neighborhood. Fortunate-ly, municipalities can craft regulations providing direct accountability to the short term rental host, who has a financial (and perhaps, social) interest in ensuring that their guests do not create a nuisance.

For example, Hartford requires that prop-erty owners of lots improved with one-unit dwellings, or lots within certain sin-gle family neighborhoods, remain on site during the duration of a short term rental occurring thereon.22 Similarly, in Phila-delphia, only the “primary resident” of a dwelling unit may use their dwelling unit as short term rental for 91-180 days per year.23 Only the owner of a dwelling unit, or a tenant who lives within the dwelling unit for at least half of the year and who has the dwelling unit owner’s permission to operate a short term rental qualify as a “primary resident” under the Philadel-phia regulation.

Other ConsiderationsCompliance with local zoning regulations is just one of a number of concerns attor-neys should have in mind if a client ex-presses an interest in using their proper-ty for a short term rental use. Landlords who are wary of allowing their tenants to make a dwelling unit available for short term rental use may want to consider amending their lease agreement to state that a tenant may only rent the premises as a short term rental with the landlord’s express permission to do so. Similarly, property owners and tenants alike should review their insurance policies to deter-mine whether or not: (1) the owner is covered in the event a guest suffers an in-jury on the property or within the dwell-ing unit during their stay; and (2) that the tenant’s renters insurance coverage extends to guests or invitees who pay to occupy the dwelling unit as a short term rental.

ConclusionShort term rentals bring more travelers to our communities, shoppers to our stores and diners to our restaurants. They bring guests to our towns and cities that might not otherwise come to Connecticut. And, they can make a difference in helping a homeowner or tenant stay in the place they call home. Municipalities should proactively address community-specific concerns to make sure local residents and business owners can enjoy the benefits of this growing industry without adversely impacting the character of the surround-ing community. CL

Notes1. Daddona, Patricia, “CT attracts 64,000

Airbnb guests, $11M in income.” The Hart-ford Business Journal. February 28, 2017.

2. Bennett, Macaela J, “Airbnb Connecticut hosts raked in $11 million last year.” Greenwich Time. March 22, 2017.

3. Id.4. See Adams v. Lakeside Place Homeown-

ers Association, Inc., No. 09-CI-00537, 5 (August 8, 2014).

5. Id. at 9.6. Id.7. Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Associa-

tion, Inc., No. 04-16-00022-CV, 2016 WL 6775591 at *4 (November 16, 2016).

8. Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities As-sociation, 180 Wash.2d 241, 253 (2014).

9. Id. (emphasis added).10. City of Hartford Zoning Regulations, Sec.

3.5.E.(1).11. Metro Government of Nashville and David-

son County, Tennessee Code of Ordinances Sec. 17.16.250.E.

12. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Code of Ordi-nances Sec. 14-604.13.b.1.

13. Jersey City, New Jersey Code of Ordinances Sec. 345-60.Y.1.b.

14. City of Hartford Zoning Regulations, Sec. 3.5.1.E.

15. City of Hartford Zoning Regulations, Sec. 3.5.1.E.(4).


17. Daddona, Patricia, “CT attracts 64,000 Airbnb guests, $11M in income.” The Hart-ford Business Journal. February 28, 2017.


19. Id.20. Metro Government of Nashville and David-

son County, Tennessee Code of Ordinances Sec. 6.28.030.K.

21. Metro Government of Nashville and David-son County, Tennessee Code of Ordinances Sec. 17.04.060.

Short Term Rentals(Continued from page 21)

Pro Bono(Continued from page 28)



Looking for another way to protect your retirement funds?

Long-Term Care Insurance may be the answer.

• Connecticut Partnership Certified Long-Term Care insurance (LTCi) policies offer dollar-for-dollar asset protection.

• Discounts for CBA members, spouses and eligible extended family members

• Underwriting concession for CBA members

• Affordable inflation options

• Work with LTCi specialists with extensive experience in enrolling members from other associations, such as: • Bar Associations of MA, ME and NH • Massachusetts Society of CPAs • Massachusetts Medical Society • AFT CT and many more

Kronholm Insurance Services800.LTC.ATTY (800.582.2889)

For more information, contact:

For more than 50 years, the CNA Lawyers Professional Liability program has helped attorneys manage risk with a broad range of insurance products, programs and a comprehensive series of risk control tools and services. And our Professional Liability Risk Control hotline helps you navigate the challenges facing law firms today.

As part of an insurance organization with more than $56 billion in assets and an “A” rating from A.M. Best, CNA has the financial strength you can count on.

Start reducing your firm’s liability risk now. For a quote or more information, contact Kronholm Insurance Services at 800-842-8444, or e-mail [email protected]

Kronholm insurance services is dedicated to serving the needs of the Connecticut legal community. We offer a full range of insurance products specially designed for attorneys.

CNA is a registered trademark of CNA Financial Corporation. Copyright © 2011 CNA. All rights reserved.

We understand malpractice risk is always on the docket.

www.lawyersinsurance.com www.kronholminsurance.com

CNA-SP-040_LPLAds_65x5rFINAL.indd 1 5/19/11 2:31 PM

For a quote or more information, contact Kronholm Insurance Services* at [email protected] or visit www.kronholminsurance.com.




www.leap.us

Have the freedom to practice law anywhere, anytime.

You can now capitalize on previously wasted hours out

of the office and practice law on the go, with LEAP 365.

Work is no longer a time or place. Make it an activity.

Everything you needto run a small law firm

Making the small law firms of CT successful

The Rise of AirBnb - c.ymcdn.com · PDF filedrew in legal professionals from throughout the...

Documents

Transcript of The Rise of AirBnb - c.ymcdn.com · PDF filedrew in legal professionals from throughout the...