CT attorney defends records breach in Alex Jones Sandy Hook case
WATERBURY — Significant profile New Haven protection attorney Norm Pattis suggests it was an “innocent mistake” to mail really private Sandy Hook health care documents to Alex Jones’ Texas personal bankruptcy lawyer — a blunder that shouldn’t price tag Pattis a 6-month suspension.
“The disclosure in this case was not destructive. At most it was built via a misunderstanding of a confidentiality get and inexperience with digital discovery,” Pattis argued in legal papers in state Remarkable Court docket by way of his attorney Wesley Mead. “To suspend legal professional Pattis on this history would make this a situation initial of its variety, to punish a lawyer so seriously for an inadvertent mistake, misreading or misinterpretation of a confidentiality buy.”
Pattis’ plea to be spared the punishment of shedding his Connecticut law license for 6 months is the most current advancement in the fallout of the $1.5 billion in damages Jones has been ordered to spend Sandy Hook people he defamed.
Not only is the long term of Jones as a top conspiracist at stake soon after he submitted for personalized individual bankruptcy, but the file of Pattis – a “well-highly regarded legal professional in the legal community…with no disciplinary heritage, who has had a very long and honorable occupation as a single of the best litigators in Connecticut.”
“Suspending attorney Pattis would deprive the courts and community of an knowledgeable and zealous advocate,” Pattis’ lawful argument reads. “The instances at situation here, speak at the extremely most, to an innocent slip-up or misinterpretation of a confidentiality purchase that had not too long ago been amended.”
Pattis is referring to an incident that made national headlines during a livestreamed demo in August, when an attorney for parents of a slain Sandy Hook boy shocked Jones on the witness stand by revealing that the attorney experienced inadvertently been despatched by Jones’ Texas lawyer Jones’ cellphone calls and the guarded medical documents of 8 Sandy Hook people and an FBI agent who sued Jones in Connecticut.
Andino Reynal, who was defending Jones in court docket that working day, named the astonishing disclosure “the worst day of my lawful career.” Reynal, who obtained the Sandy Hook household clinical information from Jones’ Texas personal bankruptcy attorney, also argued for leniency in court docket papers submitted with condition Excellent Courtroom in Waterbury. Reynal has been advised for a a few-thirty day period suspension of his means to follow law in Connecticut.
The circumstance towards Pattis and Reynal will be read in mid-January.
The challenge for Pattis will come at a time in his 30-12 months career in which he is at a crossroads. In addition to functioning Jones’ post-trial appeals in Connecticut, Pattis started jury range on Monday symbolizing Joseph Biggs, a member of the Very pleased Boys team, who’s charged with seditious conspiracy in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
In November, Brian Staines, Connecticut’s chief disciplinary counsel, argued in a court docket doc that “Pattis, becoming informed of the protective order, his possession of extremely private-legal professional eyes only health-related studies, failed to supply even the small quantity of treatment when instructing his associate to transfer all of this discovery to (Jones’ former direct personal bankruptcy lawyer Kyung) Lee, an unauthorized recipient.”
Staines argued there was no justification for a attorney with Pattis’ experience and awareness of substantial-profile conditions to mishandle “highly personalized data, which includes the plaintiff’s professional medical histories, psychiatric information, and info regarding the plaintiff’s non-public social media accounts.”
Pattis in his argument disagreed.
“To argue that each attorney that helps make an harmless and unintended mistake or inadvertently misinterprets a provision in a confidentiality get really should be subjected to sanctions would result in sizeable injustice.”
Pattis argued he would alternatively be a cautionary tale than have a strike on his record.
“If the court docket establishes that willpower is warranted [it should not], it ought to think about educational specifications somewhat than reprimand or suspension,” Pattis’ argument reads. “It would not only provide as a corrective evaluate, but also, as attorney Pattis is well known member of the bar and this is a situation of large media focus, it could also serve to educate and aid other lawyers.”
Attain Rob Ryser at [email protected] or 203-731-3342