Connecticut judge disbars divorce lawyer, saying her efforts to disrupt case with ‘empty and malicious claims’ threatens courts’ ability to hand down justice

A Superior Court judge has taken the unusual step of disbarring a divorce lawyer for making “empty and malicious” claims of abuse and antisemitic declarations to win an advantage for her client by “snarling the case into an un-triable mess.”

In his decision, Judge Thomas Moukawsher blasted attorney Nickola Cunha for what he said are malicious accusations that are unsupported by any evidence. In his long decision laying the groundwork for disbarment — and in an earlier decision in the same case — Moukawsher expressed concern that similar, if less egregious, tactics in the increasingly brutal arena of divorce court have the potential “to disrupt and damage the integrity of the judicial system itself.”

“She has systematically tried to use the justice system against itself in a bid to frustrate it. In a bid to discredit it. In a bid that, if unchecked here and elsewhere, threatens to destroy it as a credible instrument of democracy,” Moukawsher wrote. “Indeed, Ms. Cunha and her client have lashed the system as broken and corrupt. But the case’s tortured history may be better explained by the system indulging Ms. Cunha and her client too much. In a quest to achieve fairness and give the benefit of every doubt, the system has allowed itself to be tied in knots.”

Attempts to reach Cunha were unsuccessful.

The alleged behavior questioned in Cunha’s disbarment is not isolated. As contested divorces with prolonged custody battles at ruinous legal costs drag on longer and become more bitter, allegations of conspiracies and anonymous screeds about the state’s family court system are appearing more regularly on the internet.

Judges have been threatened, and photos of their spouses posted online. A Cromwell man was convicted of threatening one judge and urging followers in antisemitic internet postings to kill others.

Of Connecticut’s 38,500 lawyers, 133 are currently disbarred, according to the Judicial Branch. Disbarred lawyers are able, under state law, to apply for reinstatement after five years, which Moukawsher suggests is too soon in Cunha’s case.

The state judicial branch said it could not immediately provide statistics on how common it is for judges to disbar lawyers who appear before them, a process affirmed by a 2003 state Supreme Court decision.

The Connecticut Practice Book, which establishes rules for the operation of the courts and the conduct of lawyers, gives judges the power to disbar summarily for cause that “occurs in the actual presence of the court.” The Statewide Grievance Committee is empowered to discipline lawyers, but instructed to “defer to the court if the court chooses to exercise its jurisdiction.”

“Ms. Cunha will have the right to apply for reinstatement within five years of this order, not by virtue of the court’s ruling, but because the practice book gives her that right,” Moukawsher wrote.

Until Moukawsher’s ruling Tuesday, Cunha, who has offices in Hamden and has practiced law since 1999, represented one party in a contentious divorce involving a couple with children that has entered its third year, generated enormous fees for lawyers and various family relation’s trial professionals and captured a following of court regulars.

The case was referred to Moukawsher, who is assigned to preside over especially complex and contentious divorces, after Cunha accused the judge presiding over the divorce trial, Gerard I. Adelman, of bias against non-Jews, bias against the disabled and other claims. When Cunha moved to disqualify Adelman, Moukawsher convened a hearing and told her to produce her proof.

According to Moukawsher’s decision, which reproduces portions of the transcript of the hearing, Cunha rambled for 30 pages or so. Cunha made claims against Adelman but had not produced anything that, in Moukawsher’s view, supported her assertions. Finally, Cunha expressed antisemitic and conspiracy claims, the decision says..

Cunha said she was relying on “the enormous amount of information and evidence that’s come to me” about the alleged conspiracy. Pressed by Moukawsher, she said, “when you start looking at the cases and you start looking at the professionals engaged in the cases, it is consistent and it supports that claim.” She said, “I have a list of cases ... So it’s a vicious circle.”

Moukawsher asked her to produce the list that would support her claim. Cunha rummaged through her computer put failed to produce one. A recess was called to allow he to search further. Finally, Cunha acknowledged she had no list.

“There — there is not, Judge,” Cunha said.

Cunha’s other allegations were dismissed after similar questioning.

Moukawsher summoned Cunha back to court earlier this month to defend herself. He told her she faced disbarment and advised her to hire a lawyer. Cunha declined the advice and instead lashed out at Moukawsher.

She called his conclusions “clearly erroneous.”

“I find these proceedings to be intentionally harassing and intimidation and an attempt by Your Honor solely to shut me down for the corruption that I have raised before his Court,” she said, according to the record. “Your Honor has engaged in malfeasance, gross malfeasance, I will not be intimidated. I will remind this court that your so-called historical writing Memorandum of Decision where you touch upon the history that it is, it is a joke and it is pathetic, and you should be ashamed or yourself for subjecting myself to that type of rhetoric. Frankly Judge, I am ashamed to even be sitting before you with the type of conduct that you have engaged in. You have engaged in material misrepresentation; you have lied to the public.”

Cunha continued for a moment or two before Moukawsher asked her to stop speaking.

“Yes Judge,” Cunha replied.” Yes. I will obey, Your Honor, would you like me to bow, I’m sorry, I am below you. I will obey. l will be quiet, no problem. Thank you.”

In his written decision, Moukawsher said it is “monstrous” to make Cunha’s conspiracy claim “without thought, without evidence, without restraint, repeatedly, on the record, in court, with a specific claim about a list that proves not to exist.”

He said such behavior threatens the judiciary by undermining its credibility.

“When lawyers speak the public rightly assumes they don’t speak lightly,” Moukawsher said. “After all truth is their business. Therefore, Ms. Cunha’s lies about a Jewish conspiracy are particularly reprehensible. Without the court exposing them as lies, the public might give them some credit when they deserve none.

“Misconduct like this threatens to drag the courts into the primordial ooze that passes for public discourse in some quarters today,” Moukawsher said. “One whiff of this swamp should be enough for the courts and those of its officers who are true to their duties to set out firmly in the other direction. This moment is one chance to do so.”

Moukawsher wrote in his decision disbarring Cunha that her conduct and accusations violated “at least” seven rules of professional conduct and “provide multiple grounds” for disbarment. The rules prohibit dishonesty and deceit; stalling, diverting and disrupting proceedings; and recklessly impugning a judge’s integrity.

He said Cunha used the judicial system to punish opponents and has called three judges assigned so far to her client’s divorce “corrupt and abusive.”

“Her actions have been grave.” Moukawsher wrote. “They have been intentional. Her motives have been corrupt — they have been to cloud the truth for the perceived benefit of her client, rather than to seek out the truth and seek the justice associated with that truth.”