On Saturday, March 7, 2026, CT Mirror reported that former Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson is facing accusations of violating the code of conduct. The allegations stem from his involvement in a case he previously presided over while still serving on the bench.

Just days after joining a prominent Hartford law firm in 2024, Robinson allegedly began working on a case that had come before him two years prior when he was Chief Justice. Over the following year, he reportedly billed over $7,000 for assisting fellow attorneys at Day Pitney in preparing a second appeal for a 13-year-old civil case that had reached the Supreme Court. Notably, some of these attorneys were the same ones who had argued the case when Robinson was chief justice.

Now, the attorney representing the defendant in the case is claiming that Robinson’s actions not only violated the legal professional code of conduct by working on the case without informing the court or opposing counsel but also compromised the integrity of the judicial process. The accusation is that Robinson potentially used confidential information from Supreme Court discussions to aid his new colleagues in crafting the second appeal.

Garrett Flynn, the attorney for the defendant, has requested a Superior Court judge to disqualify Day Pitney from the case and to order a court hearing to compel Robinson to testify about his involvement. Flynn asserts that the facts necessitating disqualification are “undisputed, extraordinary, and deeply troubling,” as stated in a 23-page motion. The motion seeks to remove Day Pitney attorneys from the case, alleging that Robinson and the firm violated the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Day Pitney has responded by filing a motion to stay all existing deadlines in the case pending the resolution of the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel.

The original case, Clinton versus Aspinwall, Piaker and Young, was heard by a Supreme Court panel that included Robinson in April 2022. Day Pitney attorneys Glenn Dowd and Howard Fetner argued the case, which involved a dispute over the meaning of contract terms, against Flynn. Five months later, the court sent the case back to the Superior Court without issuing a ruling due to a technicality regarding the jury verdict. Robinson was among the judges involved in that opinion.

Robinson announced his retirement, with his last day on the court being September 6, 2024. Nine days later, Day Pitney announced that Robinson was joining the firm as a member of the Appellate Practice group.

Billing records submitted as court exhibits on February 25 by Day Pitney indicate that Robinson submitted three time entries on September 20, 2024, for reviewing the Clinton case. At that time, Dowd and Fetner were preparing to submit 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 October 1, 2024, with the state Appellate Court, but was immediately transferred to the Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments in February 2025, with Justices Andrew J. McDonald, Gregory T. D’Auria, and Steven D. Ecker—who had adjudicated the first appeal with Robinson—sitting on the second panel.

Flynn argues that Robinson violated Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.12, which states that 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.

University of Connecticut Law Professor Leslie C. Levin, who specializes in legal ethics, suggested Robinson would have been screened by Day Pitney when he joined the law firm. Levin added that 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.

 

 

Source: CT Mirror