In a prior blog, I spoke about Attorney James T. Flaherty's legal abuse of his own clients. He has a pattern of taking on cases where individuals are in considerable distress. He then concocts major bills in the case, often double billing by working in tandem with his associates Attorney Sandi Girolamo and Attorney Pam Magnano. Then because he often has little idea of what he is doing, Attorney Flaherty will wreck the case and leave his clients on the lurch.
Some believe that Attorney James T. Flaherty simply doesn't know how to practice the law. I actually believe that Attorney Flaherty blows off his cases in order to discredit his clients so that they are unable to retrieve their losses either through a complaint to Statewide Grievance or through Civil Court.
Often, as their cases approach trial, either the day before or the morning of the trial, Attorney Flaherty will approach his clients and demand an immediate large payment. When it came to me, Attorney Flaherty asked for an immediate $30,000 or else. Then using one pretext or another, Attorney James T. Flaherty will withdraw from the case and then sue for payment of his inflated bills in civil court and then foreclose on your house.
Attorney Flaherty has had several of these collection cases which he usually finds a way to settle. However, the recent malpractice case of Mr. Jeffrey Nappo versus Attorney James T. Flaherty is apparently evading the usual script. The case, which was originally filed on September 26, 2011, is still underway over four years later. There will be a hearing in the case on April 22, 2015 and then a trial management hearing on June 9, 2015. Of course, these have been scheduled before and have not been followed through on. So what is going on with this case?
Early in 2009, Jeff Nappo's mother had a post judgment matter in family court that simply needed to be resolved having to do with the release of a bond. Jeff Nappo wasn't even a party to the case--he was just helping out his mother. Mr. Nappo spoke to two well respected law firms before approaching Jim Flaherty, both of whom stated that they could handle the matter for approximately $2,500.00.
When Jeff Nappo spoke to Attorney Flaherty, Flaherty stated that he would expect to receive a $10,000.00 retainer, but he anticipated that he wouldn't even come close to that amount in resolving the legal issue. Fast forward, Jeff Nappo received a walloping bill because Attorney Flaherty had carried out his usual trick of adding Attorney Sandi Girolamo to the case and was essentially double billing by having her present during hearings and depositions.
Later on, Jeff Nappo received a bill for November and December of that year which was an exact duplicate of earlier bills that he had received except there were different dates and a higher balance. When Jeff confronted the accountant about these bills, reportedly she stated, "You're right. We just make bills up for Jim."
Later on, Jeff Nappo received a bill for November and December of that year which was an exact duplicate of earlier bills that he had received except there were different dates and a higher balance. When Jeff confronted the accountant about these bills, reportedly she stated, "You're right. We just make bills up for Jim."
Eventually, Jeff's mother's case went to a hearing and during a break in the hearing, Attorney Flaherty went up to Jeff Nappo and demanded another $10,000.00 or he stated he was going to walk out of the case and Mr. Nappo reluctantly provided him with ten checks for $1000.00 each. After that, he didn't hear from Flaherty for another ten months.
Ultimately, Attorney Flaherty went to court demanding that Mr. Jeff Nappo pay him additional money in legal fees and Mr. Nappo responded with several counterclaims including excessive billing, failing to complete the work within the agreed upon limits of expense as set forth between the parties, failing to file necessary and required paperwork as part of the representation, failing to communicate, and submitting bills with false charges on them as well as additional violations of the CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act).
Of course, as I have said, this was well over four years ago. So what is going on? Why didn't this matter go to trial long ago like all other trials?
I recall that when I brought my own malpractice case against Attorney James T. Flaherty for very similar practices, although I will add outright lying to the trial court to my list of complaints, it really did not last very long. There was a year long period consisting mostly of discovery and some pretty ineffective pretrial hearings. Finally, we ended up in court before Judge Domnarski who pretty much said, we are going to trial and I am giving it two days and that's it.
You will forgive me for being somewhat cynical, but I can't help thinking that this extraordinary situation where the case does not go to trial and there are ongoing continuances is an attempt by the Trial Court to simply avoid trial.
Bottom line is they want Jeff Nappo to settle the way all the cases prior to Jeff have settled.
For over a decade, Attorney James T. Flaherty has used the Hartford Civil Court as his own personal enforcement agency to wrest vast sums of money out of his former clients. What networks of interdependence and mutual support Attorney Flaherty developed during these years to be able to wield such influence, who is to know. But the evidence of the impropriety of the Civil Court in this area stands right before us in the ongoing Nappo case and in the records of the other 69 or so cases with very similar outcomes that Attorney James T. Flaherty initiated against his own clients.
No other attorney comes near such an extraordinary record of pursuing his own clients in this manner.
The Nappo case is an embarrassment to the Trial Court because it threatens to put on the record the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has been allowing an attorney to conduct raiding campaigns against his own clients for years. They would like to sweep this matter under the rug.
For years, Attorney James T. Flaherty has been the teflon attorney--no grievance to Statewide Grievance has been able to stick. He has evaded any kind of accountability for his cases in family court, walking out of these cases at will, even when he is right in the middle of trial. Nothing phases him, no disciplinary committee stops him, and judges will stick their necks out for him seemingly without hesitation, i.e. Judge Jorge Simon who praised his work in open court and Judge Solomon who found his work to be exemplary in a letter to the disciplinary committee.
For years, Attorney James T. Flaherty has been the teflon attorney--no grievance to Statewide Grievance has been able to stick. He has evaded any kind of accountability for his cases in family court, walking out of these cases at will, even when he is right in the middle of trial. Nothing phases him, no disciplinary committee stops him, and judges will stick their necks out for him seemingly without hesitation, i.e. Judge Jorge Simon who praised his work in open court and Judge Solomon who found his work to be exemplary in a letter to the disciplinary committee.
The problem, however, with trying to handle the Flaherty/Nappo matter with another coverup is that after the case is resolved, Attorney James T. Flaherty has every intention of coming back to Court with two more of his recently acquired victims. Jim Flaherty has an addiction to money and such a gross disregard for how he obtains it that if the Court system doesn't do something to stop him, Flaherty's feeding frenzy will never end. It is time for the trial court to refuse any further settlements with Attorney James T. Flaherty and to insist that the Nappo matter goes to trial right away. Not only that, it also needs to make sure that the trial is fair, not the trumped up piece of nonsense that other litigants have been stuck with up to this point.
