Appellate Court rules against CT lawyer disbarred for ‘spurious assault’ on integrity of a judge

The Connecticut lawyer accused the judge of trying to “shut me down for the corruption that I have raised before this court.’’

The state Appellate Court has rejected claims by a lawyer who said she was wrongly disbarred after making what were found to be baseless allegations of bias against a judge.

It was the second loss in less than a month for divorce lawyer Nickola Cunha, who failed to persuade the Appellate Court that recently retired Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher denied her an opportunity to adequately defend herself when he summarily disbarred her in 2022.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Cunha filed in U.S. District Court in an attempt to collect damages from Moukawsher.

The disbarment arose from Cunha’s representation of a woman involved in a bitter and prolonged divorce. Among other things, Cunha claimed the judge presiding over the divorce was biased against anyone who isn’t Jewish, is biased against disabled people and protects men who abuse their children.

Moukawsher demanded that Cunha substantiate the allegations when he was called on to decide whether the judge she had complained about should be removed from presiding over the divorce. She claimed initially to have such evidence, but failed to produce any after being given repeated opportunities to do so.

Moukawsher declined to remove the judge presiding over the divorce and concluded Cunha’s allegations were not only unsubstantiated but “baseless” and  “particularly rank.” He said they “not only involved a fraud on the court, but a spurious assault on the integrity of a judge.” He said the divorce had become prolonged and bitter in part because of a toxic atmosphere Cunha introduced in the case.

In spite of Moukawsher’s repeated instructions against making claims in court that she could not support with evidence, Cunha persisted, saying at one point, “I do believe that there’s outright bias here without a doubt. I believe that the record reflects that.’’

She accused Moukawsher of trying to “shut me down for the corruption that I have raised before this court.’’ She said his disqualification ruling ‘‘is a joke, and it is pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself for subjecting myself to that type of rhetoric.”

Moukawsher disbarred Cunha for conduct that took place before him in court, a power granted to judges under state law but rarely exercised.

Cunha argued in her appeal that she couldn’t properly defend herself because she was given insufficient notice of the discipline, that she was being punished for exercising her free speech rights, that there isn’t enough evidence to show she violated rules of professional conduct and the disbarment is excessive punishment.

The appellate court rejected all four arguments.