The federal judge assigned to convicted former state budget officer Konstantinos Diamantis’s second corruption trial postponed a decision Wednesday on whether to allow his lawyer to withdraw from the case because he hasn’t been fully paid for the first trial.
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill referred the question about representation to a federal magistrate for fact finding before making a decision on whether defense lawyer Norm Pattis continues to represent Diamantis through the second trial, now scheduled for February.
Pattis, who represented Diamantis at the first trial in October, asked earlier this month to be allowed out of the second because of a an unpaid fee.
Diamantis, a lawyer himself, filed papers in court last week disputing Pattis’s assertions about an unpaid fee. He also asked that Pattis be ordered to continue to defend him and that the February date for the second trial be postponed if the fee and representation dispute delays his trial preparation.
In the first case, Diamantis — who was in charge of state financing for public school building projects as deputy budget director — was convicted of taking pay-offs in return for steering construction contracts. In the second case, he is accused of taking about $100,000 in cash for using his influence in government to kill an investigation of Medicaid fraud.
Former state legislator Kosta Diamantis, right, and his attorney Norm Pattis exit U.S. District Court in Bridgeport on Feb. 28, 2025. (Photo by Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror)
In his request to Underhill to be allowed to withdraw from the second trial, Pattis did not discuss specifics of his fee agreement, but wrote: “Mr. Diamantis has thus far not fulfilled his obligation as to services for that trial that has gone to verdict and has been warned that the undersigned will move to withdraw if the responsibility is not fulfilled.”
Diamantis countered in his filing with the court that Pattis agreed to represent him at the second trial “under a single retainer” that covered both cases.
“I have substantially fulfilled all obligations required of me throughout the representation in both matters,” Diamantis wrote. “Significantly, I have paid 75 % of the substantial agreed upon fee to Mr. Pattis.”
Underhill directed Pattis and Diamantis to present their positions on the unpaid fee to U.S Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. Underhill deferred decisions of the fee dispute and a start date for the second trial under after hearing from Vatti.