Just days after joining a prominent Hartford law firm in 2024, former Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson began work on a case he presided over two years earlier while still on the bench, records show. Over the next year, Robinson billed more than $7,000 while assisting fellow Day Pitney attorneys to prepare a second appeal for a 13-year-old civil case before the Supreme Court. Some of those attorneys were the same lawyers who had argued the case when Robinson was chief justice.  But now the attorney for the defendant in the case is alleging that Robinson not only violated the legal professional code of conduct by working on the case without informing either the court or opposing counsel but also “violated the integrity of the judicial process” by potentially using confidential conversations between Supreme Court justices to help his new employees craft that second appeal. West Hartford attorney Garrett Flynn’s client is asking a Superior Court judge to disqualify Day Pitney from the case and order a court hearing to compel Robinson to testify about the depth of his involvement in the case. “The facts requiring disqualification are undisputed, extraordinary, and deeply troubling,” Flynn wrote in a 23-page motion that seeks to have Day Pitney attorneys removed from the case and claims that Robinson, and the law firm, violated the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct. Late Friday, Day Pitney filed a motion asking the court to “stay all existing deadlines in this case pending the “resolution” of the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs counsel. Robinson was a member of the Supreme Court panel that heard the first appeal of the civil case — Clinton versus Aspinwall, Piaker and Young — in April of 2022. Day Pitney attorneys Glenn Dowd and Howard Fetner argued the case — a dispute about the meaning of contract terms — before the court against Flynn. About five months later, the court remanded the case back to Superior Court without issuing a ruling because of a technicality regarding the jury verdict. Robinson was one of the judges on that opinion, records show. While that case went back to the lower courts, Robinson announced that he was retiring; his last day on the court was Sept. 6, 2024. Nine days later, Day Pitney announced in a press release that Robinson was joining the firm as a “member of the Appellate Practice group.” Billing records entered as court exhibits on Feb. 25 by Day Pitney as part of the pending case show that on Sept. 20, 2024, Robinson submitted three time entries on the bill for reviewing the Clinton case. At that time, Dowd and Fetner were preparing to submit for their second appeal in the case to the Supreme Court.  Robinson billed $880 for “reviewing and commenting” on a motion to transfer the case immediately to the Supreme Court, according to records submitted by Flynn as part of his motion to disqualify Day Pitney from the case  The second appeal was filed on Oct. 1, 2024 with the state Appellate Court but was immediately transferred to the Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments in February 2025 and three justices who had adjudicated the first appeal with Robinson —Justices Andrew J. McDonald, Gregory T. D’Auria and Steven D. Ecker — sat on the second panel.  In his motion, Flynn states Robinson violated Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.12, which states, “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.” “The plain language of Rule 1.12 and its commentary make clear that Justice Robinson could not ethically represent the Plaintiff at all in this matter — let alone help to craft a transfer motion and appellate brief that would be reviewed by Justices with whom he once served,” Flynn wrote. Flynn argues in his motion that Day Pitney gained an unfair legal advantage because “Justice Robinson knew confidential information about what three current Justices once thought about this very case.” “Justice Robinson’s fellow justices had a right to expect that he would not represent a party in a matter where he was previously privy to deliberations that are expected to be sacred and secret,” Flynn wrote.  Flynn also wrote that Dowd and Fetner had a duty to divulge that Robinson was working on the case by alerting both the judge presiding over the civil trial and opposing counsel, which he said they did not do.   “The Defendants also had a right to expect that the Plaintiff and his attorneys would not gain the advantage of advice from a former judge who participated in confidential judicial aspects of the first appeal,” Flynn said. Flynn declined to comment Wednesday. Robinson, Dowd and Fetner did not return requests for comment, nor did the law firm’s national press contact.  University of Connecticut Law Professor Leslie C. Levin, who specializes in legal ethics, said Robinson would have been screened by Day Pitney when he joined the law firm. “If the facts are as alleged and the two appeals involved the same matter, Justice Robinson should have been screened so that he had no involvement in the second appeal,” Levin said. “The screening procedures need to be put in place by the firm reasonably promptly.” Levin added she’s certain Day Pitney routinely screens new employees. “It is conceivable that the screening software that the firm uses is not designed for situations where the lawyer is a former judge,”she said. Robinson’s involvement in the case surfaced during a hearing last week before Hartford Superior Court Judge Amir Shaikh regarding legal fees. In anticipation of the hearing, Dowd sent Flynn a spreadsheet of Day Pitney’s recent bills that included $7,260 in legal fees submitted by Richard A. Robinson. According to a court transcript of the hearing, Flynn asked Dowd if this was the same Richard A. Robinson who is a former Supreme Court Justice. When Dowd confirmed it was, Flynn asked the judge to halt the hearing because of the implication that Robinson had secretly been working on the case for over a year Dowd started responding to Flynn’s allegation, saying, “I assume Judge Robinson was aware of what his responsibilities were and has a response” when Shaikh interrupted and halted the hearing. “I don’t want anyone to put anything out here at this point without the ability to properly think about it and respond accordingly,” Shaikh said, according to the transcript. Flynn then asked that Shaikh order Day Pitney attorneys involved in the case to preserve all records and emails. He also asked the judge to order Day Pitney to preserve all communications before or after Day Pitney’s hiring of Robinson, which refer or relate to him in this matter; all documents showing who at Day Pitney knew Robinson was working on this matter; all communication to or from Robinson concerning this matter, regardless of whether they were sent inside or outside of Day Pitney; and all communication between Day Pitney attorneys and the plaintiff concerning Robinson for possible in camera review by the judge. Shaikh has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. “Were it not for the pecuniary self-interest of the plaintiff and his counsel (including a desire to recover Justice Robinson’s fees at $1,100 an hour), defendants might never have discovered Justice Robinson’s improper involvement in this case,” Flynn wrote in his motion.  “The cat is now out of the bag, and defendants cannot be required to tolerate this situation.” ...read more read less