From misusing client trust funds to breaching court orders, several Connecticut attorneys are now facing serious disciplinary consequences, including suspension and disbarment. Recent cases reveal a consistent theme: when lawyers break the rules that protect clients and the integrity of the profession, the courts don’t hesitate to act.
In this week’s roundup, we highlight key disciplinary actions, including a high-profile disbarment over $475,000 in missing trust funds, a suspension for violating client confidentiality in the Sandy Hook case,
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Donald Crew McPartland
Between July 2022 and December 2024, McPartland’s IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account) balance rose to over $505,000. Bank records showed more than $475,000 was electronically transferred to his business operating account, but very few transactions were supported by appropriate payees or client authorizations. Only two checks, totaling about $20,180, were documented. The bulk of the trust account funds was missing a clear trail or justification.
The Statewide Grievance Committee launched a routine IOLTA audit after discovering an overdraft. McPartland agreed in June 2024 to adhere to quarterly audits and cooperate fully, but never did. He failed to produce required records, books, or even to attend scheduled court hearings despite two subpoenas and repeated court orders.
A temporary suspension was issued on March 3, 2025, pending audit compliance.
On April 10, Judge Patrick J. Carroll III cited him for contempt and fined him $5,000. A second contempt motion followed on May 2, leading to formal disbarment by June 23, 2025.
The final disbarment order stressed the court’s “serious concerns” about potential malfeasance and “bad faith obstruction” of the disciplinary process.
Why it matters is because It’s a rare high-value trust account case, highlighting serious scrutiny on IOLTA compliance even long after statutory overdrafts are discovered.
It also Illustrates how non-cooperation with audits compounds discipline, turning initial violations into far more severe consequences. Raises questions about the line between administrative oversight and possible criminal misuse of client funds when trust accounting is so severely deficient.
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Norm (Norman A.) Pattis
Improper disclosure of highly confidential medical records of Sandy Hook families in violation of a court-issued protective order during the Alex Jones defamation litigation.
Initial Penalty: Six-month suspension imposed by Judge Barbara Bellis in January 2023 described as an “abject failure” to safeguard sensitive documents.
Upon appeal, another judge reduced the discipline to a two-week suspension, which Pattis must schedule within six months of the order.
Judge Robin Wilson faulted Pattis for failing to appreciate the consequences of improperly distributing sensitive, protected records to unauthorized parties. Pattis had a clean 30-year record; the court noted absence of dishonest or selfish motive as mitigating factors.
The two-week suspension must be served consecutively within six months, with Pattis required to notify the court of the specific time frame
The Ethical significance to this is Offers a cautionary message: even long-practiced attorneys must uphold digital and procedural precautions when handling protected discovery.