• Superior Court
  • Hartford J.D., at Hartford
  • CV11-5035475S
  • Jun 21 2012 (Date Decided)
  • Woods, J.

A court may award a prejudgment remedy attachment, if probable cause exists that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits in an amount equal to the prejudgment remedy requested, after taking into account any defenses, counterclaims and setoffs. After Richard Rosiak's parent died, Rosiak, who resides in California, hired a Connecticut attorney, Keith Bradoc Gallant, of the law firm of Day Pitney LLP. An April 2009 retainer agreement discussed the rates of Gallant and other attorneys and paralegals at the law firm of Day Pitney. Rosiak, who is an attorney in California, protested bills for legal work, because Day Pitney produced little to no written work while Attorney Gallant worked to settle the underlying case, which went to trial in January 2010. Rosiak also claimed that because Attorney Glenn Dowd served as the trial attorney, Rosiak was forced to fly to Connecticut on the eve of trial to talk to Attorney Dowd about the litigation. Rosiak alleged that he was double billed, because he already had engaged in similar discussions with Attorney Gallant. Rosiak claimed that $3,000 to prepare a 9-page answer in response to a 9-count complaint was excessive. The underlying litigation settled on the third day of trial, when Rosiak agreed to accept one-third of the residuary estate. Afterward, Rosiak alleged that the settlement on the record was different than the terms to which he previously agreed and that he settled under protest. Day Pitney sued Rosiak, alleging that he owed attorneys' fees of $63,874 for legal services that Day Pitney provided between July 2009 and February 2011. Day Pitney claimed that Rosiak made the decision about whether to settle and that, at the time of settlement, Rosiak described Glenn Dowd as "the best litigator he had ever seen" and sent him a thank you gift. Day Pitney provided explanations for disputed charges and invoices. Probable cause exists that Day Pitney will prevail on the merits, and the court granted the law firm's request for a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $63,874.