FOLLOW US

USA Herald Investigates High Powered Divorce Firms - Attorneys Broder & Orland  

Not long ago, we brought you a breaking legal news story concerning Broder and Orland, a high powered law firm in Connecticut, and its named partner Carole Topal Orland because it faced a lawsuit from a former employee. During our investigation, we've found public divorce records where lawyers from Broder & Orland were accused of violating Rules of Professional Conduct by opposing attorneys.

Over the last couple of weeks, The USA Herald team spent a lot of time reviewing public records and reading hundreds of pages of divorce complaints, motions, settlement agreements, answers, and cross complaints related to Broder & Orland.

Through the process we found a number of cases where there appeared to be conduct by Broder & Orland that was questionable.  This law firm is amongst the highest billing and several cases we've discovered had parties that may have been left aggrieved.

Attorneys Have a Specific Set of Rules to Follow

Attorneys have a specific set of rules to follow. These rules ensure that attorneys act in an ethical manner.

In Paasman v. Paasman, a divorce filed in Superior Court in Connecticut (Case No. FST FA 14-40287), public record shows Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt: Discovery Order, Pendente Lite. It was filed by Rebecca L. Ciota, a licensed attorney and counsel for the First Plaintiff. The motion was filed in September of 2012.

In paragraph 17 of the Motion, Ms. Ciota alleges that Broder & Orland violated Rule 3.4 of Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Ciota quoted several parts of the rule including how it was unlawful to obstruct a party’s access to evidence and fail to be reasonably diligent to comply with a discovery order (remember all of those continuances asked for to produce financial documents?).

Ms. Ciota went on to state in her motion that an attorney who violates Rules of Professional Conduct open themselves up to disciplinary actions. We reached out to Ms. Ciota for comment, but she is no longer with the same firm and did not respond to our request for comment.   Ms. Ciota isn’t the only attorney who alleged in a motion during a divorce proceeding that accused Broder & Orland of violating Rules of Professional Conduct.

In 2014, Kamil Salame was a defendant in a divorce proceeding filed by his former spouse, Katherine A. Courpas in Superior Court in Connecticut (Case No. FST FA 14-40287). After switching attorneys, Ms. Courpas was represented by Broder & Orland. In 2016, Mr. Salame’s attorney, Gary I. Cohen, filed Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, Post Judgment. Mr. Cohen alleged that the plaintiff refused to engage in arbitration despite her initial acceptance. The independent arbitrator had reached out to the parties to inform them that her firm had advised the defendant’s firm on unrelated matters (paragraph 4). Both the defendant and the plaintiff signed a waiver and knew about the association.