The integrity of the legal system is upheld through strict adherence to truth and professional conduct. For former Hamden, Connecticut, attorney Nickola J. Cunha (Attorney No. 417277), a series of explosive allegations against the judiciary and multiple ethical breaches have led to her permanent removal from the legal profession.
As of early 2026, Nickola J. Cunha remains disbarred. Recent court rulings have further solidified her status by adding consecutive suspensions to her record, effectively ensuring that even if she were to seek reinstatement, the path would be barred for years to come.
The 2022 Summary Disbarment
The downfall of Nickola J. Cunha began in January 2022 in a high-conflict divorce case (Ambrose v. Ambrose). In a rare move, Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher summarily disbarred Cunha for conduct occurring in the actual presence of the court.
1. “Empty and Malicious” Claims
The disbarment was triggered by Cunha’s repeated, unsubstantiated claims that another judge, Gerard I. Adelman, was biased. Her allegations included:
-
Claims of a “Jewish conspiracy” favoring litigants of the Jewish faith.
-
Accusations that the court protected pedophiles and discriminated against the disabled.
-
False statements regarding the findings of the Department of Children and Families (DCF).
When pressed for evidence, Cunha admitted she did not have the documentation to back her claims. The court ruled that her behavior constituted a “scurrilous assault on the integrity of a judge” and a fraud on the court.
2. Legal Challenges and Appeals
Cunha challenged the disbarment through multiple avenues:
-
Writ of Error: She appealed the disbarment to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which upheld the decision in February 2024.
-
Federal Lawsuit: She sued Judge Moukawsher in federal court, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated. This case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2024, as judges are protected by judicial immunity.
New 2024 Disciplinary Action: 30-Month Suspension
Even after her disbarment, Cunha’s past conduct continued to attract legal consequences. In October 2024, Senior Judge James W. Abrams ordered an additional 30-month suspension to run consecutively to her current disbarment.
The new sanctions arose from three separate cases involving:
-
Frivolous RICO Claims: Claiming a guardian ad litem conspired with another lawyer to increase bills in violation of the RICO Act. The judge noted that “even a first-year law student” would know RICO did not apply.
-
Failure to Communicate: Neglecting a client’s needs and refusing to communicate when she became overwhelmed by her workload.
-
Financial Misconduct: Failing to refund unearned portions of a client retainer.
Current Status and Future Implications
As we move through 2026, Nickola J. Cunha is no longer permitted to practice law. While Connecticut law generally allows disbarred attorneys to apply for reinstatement after five years, the addition of the 30-month consecutive suspension means:
-
Delayed Reinstatement: The clock for any potential return to the bar will likely not begin until the disbarment period and the subsequent 30-month suspension are both accounted for.
-
Fitness Requirements: To ever practice again, she would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses the “good moral character” required of an attorney—a high bar given the findings of fraud and malice.
-
Client Security Fund: The Connecticut Client Security Fund remains a resource for any former clients who suffered financial loss due to her failure to return unearned fees.
Conclusion: Accountability in Connecticut Law
The case of Nickola J. Cunha stands as one of the most significant disciplinary actions in recent Connecticut history. It underscores the judiciary’s power to act swiftly when an attorney’s “bombast” and “scurrilous” claims threaten the foundation of the justice system. For the public, the Connecticut Judicial Branch attorney search is the most reliable tool to verify if a legal professional is in good standing.
