PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015


In late 2008, early 2009, Munro was given permission to invite certain non-judicial members of the bar to serve on her "Committee". Later, she changed the name to "Commission", I believe she changed the name on her own, and by no official process. She sent invitations to attorneys before she was given permission to do so, I believe. 

One of the attorneys was invited to join at the very time he managed to extract himself from a highly contentious Stamford case over which Munro had presided, and at exactly the same time she left Stamford for Middletown, after assigning that same contentious case to Middletown where she was heading... This attorney had admitted to a certain jurist that he had been aware of his client's fraud upon the court for nearly a year and requested to be relieved of the case. Before he abandoned his client, he had Munro order the family's pensions liquidated to address, pre-judgment, insane fees that were never before the court and were later found unreasonable, just after he had her invade minor children's trust funds to pay for bogus forensic psychological evaluations with Sidney Horowitz. 

Some of the first items on the Commission's agenda were emergency ex-parte motions for custody, GAL training and fees, and invasions of minor children's "custodial accounts" for payment of forensic psychological testing. These issues were urgent, because Munro had made some crazy rulings and needed some quick rule changes before she was personally sued. (Trust funds are not "custodial accounts" - they are independent legal entities that are specifically protected by state statutes) .

Munro and the attorney who proposed the rule change that would allow the court to order minor children to pay for their family's bogus psychological evaluations and did so under false pretext, for they failed to disclose to the Commission the fact that the case had been before Munro and Munro had ordered minor children's trust funds improperly invaded while she denied the mother a support hearing even after learning the mother and children had no heat or phone service and had been heating the home with an oven, that the mother and children had received zero dollars in child support in 2 years because that special attorney had made sure the mother never had her hearings by scheduling with Munro "emergency status conferences" (15 in 8 months!) during which she granted for him motion that were not even drafted, before canceling that mother's scheduled hearing and ordering the pensions liquidated without a financial hearing for inflated legal fees that later were found to be "unreasonable" but were until that point the cause for the attorney to bankrupt the family by placing a lis pendens on their home and failing to remove it upon court order…

Because all the orders were made "without prejudice and to be addressed at trial" the mother was unable to remedy the situation until trial, which was cancelled by Munro 7 times and ultimately never occurred due to the litigant's being stripped of their net worth. The mother could therefore not appeal.


  1. Constitutional violations written all over this case. Have seen one attorney, yet no others, raise a constitutional issue in CT Family Court. They just won't do it for fear of "pissing off the judge." Sounds like too much power that needs to be dismantled when even their own bar is afraid to speak up.

    1. It has nothing to do with fear of pissing of judges. Divorce lawyers don't raise constitutional issues because if family court started to respect constitutional rights divorce law would be much less profitable. After that becomes the status quo for a while, divorce lawyers start to forget there is a constitution. And then those divorce lawyers become family court judges. And that's how we got to where we are now.

  2. There are lots of Munro stories. My favorite relates to her supposed oversight of Stamford attorney Gary Cohen's "community service." Cohen had been grieved by a former client for extorting $300,000 for himself and another $300,000 for the client's ex wife's lawyer. Miraculously, the grievance panel found that Cohen had engaged in unethical conduct. See: (For a good laugh, note the discussion of Cohen's expert, fellow divorce lawyer Gaetano Ferro, who found Cohen's behavior ethical.) This case represents, to my knowledge, the only time any member of the Connecticut divorce bar has been sanctioned for any behavior whatsoever. Cohen was then required to perform something like 200 hours of "community service" pursuant to a subsequent settlement with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Munro was assigned to "oversee" Cohen's community service. However, Cohen wasn't up doing the required hours of community service. So Munro then gave Cohen credit for community service performed on his behalf by one of his associates, whom Cohen presumably paid. Thus, Munro unilaterally eliminated the Statewide Grievance Counsel's community service penalty. Munro subsequently retired from the bench and is now a partner at Pullman & Comley which just happened to be the law firm that represented Cohen in the grievance matter. To summarize: Cohen is actually found to have engaged in unethical conduct, Munro unilaterally commutes his community service sentence, and then Cohen's law firm pays back Munro by making her partner. Just another day at the office for corruption in Connecticut's family courts . . . .

  3. I don't think the Family Commission is disbanding. It just isn't going to meet as frequently. In any event, it doesn't matter whether the commission officially disbands. If the family judges want to form a new committee with their lawyer friends, they apparently think they can do that at any time. Who is going to stop them? There is no accountability for family court judges, so they can do whatever they want.

  4. No surprise CT residents are leaving the state in droves when corruption is rampant with no one doing anything about it, and it is unfriendly to its women, children and businesses.