One of the parties to a protracted Hartford business dispute wants retired Chief Justice Richard Robinson and his law firm removed from the case for what has been characterized as a violation of a fundamental ethics rule: advising their opponents on Supreme Court strategy in a case over which Robinson presided when it reached the high court on an earlier occasion.
Three partners in the private equity firm CCP Equity Partners have moved to disqualify Robinson and the state’s largest law firm Day Pitney, the latest development in a partnership dispute that has reached the state Supreme and Appellate courts repeatedly over the last 13 years.
Day Pitney represents John Clinton, who sued partners Michael Aspinwall and Steven Piaker and the estate of Lynne P. Young in 2013 over control of the business. Robinson joined Day Pitney after retiring from the Supreme Court in 2024.
“The facts requiring disqualification are undisputed, extraordinary, and deeply troubling,” according to the motion by partners Aspinwall, Piaker and the Young estate.
The motion to disqualify Robinson, at this point an allegation, touches upon one of the defining characteristics of the Supreme Court — that discussions among judges when deliberating over decisions are confidential.
In 2022, as chief justice, Robinson led a panel of justices that heard argument and issued a decision the first time the CCP litigation reached the high court. The court ultimately did not rule on the substantive claims in the case. The justices concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the Superior Court had not issued a final decision and returned the matter to the lower court for further proceedings.
The case reached the Supreme Court a second time in 2025, after Robinson had retired and joined Day Pitney. On the second occasion the court ruled on the merits of the case and returned it to the Superior Court for a new trial.
Three justices sat on the panels that heard the case both times. They are Andrew McDonald, Gregory D’Auria and Steven Ecker.
The motion for disqualification raises the possibility that, when the high court heard the case for the first time, Robinson learned, through conferences with fellow justices, their views of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments. Even if on the first occasion the case was returned the the lower court without a substantive ruling, there likely was preliminary discussion of the merits.
Day Pitney billing records obtained by the partners moving for disqualification show, according to their motion, that within days of beginning work for Day Pitney and “before Day Pitney filed its brief in the second appeal, Justice Robinson actively joined the firm’s representation of the Plaintiff in this case and offered advice about appellate tactics and strategy—even helping to draft a motion to transfer the pending appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court over which he once presided.”
“If Defendants did not see these billing records, they might have never known that Day Pitney has been coached for seventeen months by a Justice who had first hand knowledge of how a majority of the Supreme Court Justices on the 2025 panel once viewed the core contract interpretation issues in this matter. The cat is now out of the bag, and Defendants cannot be required to tolerate this situation,” the motion asserts.
The motion for disqualification was drafted by Connecticut attorneys Garrett Flynn of West Hartford, with Barbara Schellenberg and David Zabel of New Haven. Flynn declined to discuss it.
The motion for disqualification is based on The Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, which say “a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge . . . unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent, confirmed in writing.”
News of the move for disqualification of a former chief justice has become a subject of discussion among lawyers and judges, although none would discuss it publicly on Friday.
Day Pitney has not yet responded to the potential disqualification in court, which has been set down tentatively for a hearing on March 16. The firm and Robinson did not respond to inquiries.