FOLLOW US

Another interesting finding in Connecticut’s court files was spotted in Kamil Salame’s divorce proceedings (Case No. FST FA 14-4028187). Despite the large amount of money awarded to the plaintiff, motion after motion is filed. In the settlement agreement available as public record there’s another fairly interesting statement that may explain why Broder & Orland continues to apparently file a questionable amount of motions and employ delay tactics. Paragraph 15.5 states that if either party is found in default by a court of “competent jurisdiction,” the “aggrieved party” is entitled to any and all reasonable expense fees and costs, including reasonable attorney fees. So, more that Broder & Orland go to court, the more money they can make.

We also noted a fair number of cases filed by Broder & Orland where the complaint (written by one of their attorneys) requested that the named defendant pay the attorney fees for the plaintiff. A couple of examples, all filed in Superior Court in Connecticut, include Donald Stangler v. Barbara Harland (FST FA 11-4020386 S), Lesley McCauley v. Steven Kroll, Jr. (FST FA 12-4022513 S), and several currently filed divorce cases.

Are Long, Drawn Out Divorce Cases Really in the Best Interest of Children?

According to public court files, Louise Iacono filed for divorce against her husband, Ludovico, in Superior Court in Connecticut in 2010 (Case No. FST FA 10-401974S). The defendant was represented by Broder & Orland. In this highly contentious divorce, there was one minor child. The former married couple had a parenting plan filed in their divorce that discussed shared parenting time.

On October 4, 2011, Broder & Orland filed a motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt. It was alleged that Mrs. Iacono had violated the parenting plan and “intentionally” caused harm to the defendant’s relationship with the minor child (paragraph 6, Defendant’s Motion for Contempt Re: Parenting Plan, Pendente Lite).

The one and only claim listed is that Mrs. Iacono “refused to facilitate the Defendant’s parenting time…” Yet, there was no explanation of what she allegedly did that was so serious that it would cause serious harm.

Broder & Orland also asked the court to order Mrs. Iacono to pay the costs of the motion and reasonable attorney fees (on top of an order to the plaintiff to enforce the parenting time).

Broder & Orland Previously Faced Serious Accusations in Court

Further investigation by our research team revealed that Broder & Orland was sued in July 2015 by a former client who alleged legal malpractice, invasion of privacy, negligence, business interference, and made claims of slander and libel.