Chatigny Vote Could Be Today. A Final Question

It is sadly inevitable. United States District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny will be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I am told this by folks who pretend to know such things. The vote on his nomination could be as early as today.

I am not a fan of Judge Chatigny's. He's been a district court judge in Connecticut more many years. But when he took the bench, he had never tried a case to a verdict. While there is nothing wrong with learning by doing, I found his demeanor and manner on the bench stiff, unwelcoming, even bizarre. He thought likewise or worse of me, and declined, after several trials, to sit on my cases any longer.

When I tried to find out what other lawyers had found their way on to the judge's banishment list, the Court clerk told me such information was not public. It is protected by the Freedom of Information Act. Oh, that lawyers had the same privilege of secretly requesting that their cases not be heard by judges in whom they had no confidence. Power has its perquisites.

Judge Chatigny's nomination was stalled when a member of Connecticut's Chief State's Attorney's Office wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee complaining of the judge's high-handed ways in post-conviction proceedings for Michael Ross. Ross had elected, after almost two decades of legal wrangling, to die. He wanted no further action taken on his behalf. So he obtained counsel to protect what amounted to his right to die.

Federal writs flew, and they landed on Chatigny's desk. The judge was chief judge of the district at the time, so their arrival in that chambers was no doubt intended. But wait? Hadn't the judge once filed a brief pleading on behalf of Mr. Ross when he was in private practice? The judge forgot all about it, he later claimed. But he was every bit the advocate for Mr. Ross on the bench, threatening Ross's lawyer with disbarment at one point in the proceeding. Friends who were on that conference call, including a lawyer for one of Mr. Ross's relatives, called me incredulous at the judge's behavior.

But all is, apparently, forgiven. The Second Circuit disposed of the grievance filed against the judge with a wink and a nod. And now three prominent Republicans have written a letter singing the praises of Judge Chatigny. Former United States District Judge Alan Nevas, and former U.S. Attorney's Stan Twardy and Kevin O'Connor have written to the judiciary committee to demonstrate bipartisan support.

This trio of barristers, I call them the "Do I Dare To Eat A Peach Club," means well. Connecticut's federal bar is a close-knit, clubby fraternity. (More men than women still, I suspect, but call it a sorority if it suits you.) But their praise of the man has the hollow ring of toasts at a wedding dinner. What did you expect these power brokers to say? Chatigny is, after all, a member their club. I have only once attended a meeting of the federal bar club, despite have tried scores of cases in the Connecticut federal courts. I was a stranger in an even stranger land; I won't be returning.

The Connecticut Post reported yesterday that the Senate may act on Chatigny's nomination as early as today. Expect a few barbs and then approval.

But before anyone rubber stamps him, will one of the Senators at least assign a clerk the task of reading a case captioned Lee v. Edwards? This is a Second Circuit decision from the mid-nineties. Chatigny sat by designation on that panel.

In Lee, a jury awarded a man a verdict of $200,000, after trial in a malicious prosecution case. The defendant was a police officer. At trial, the lawyer for the police officer stipulated that the defendant's municipal employer would pay any award of damages, thus making moot whether the officer had the capacity to pay the sum.

The Second Circuit remitted the verdict, reducing it to $75,000. Why? Everyone knows police officers don't have that kind of money. Huh? There was no evidence of capacity to pay in the record. Counsel stipulated the City would pay. Why make up facts that either are not in the record or are not even relevant as the issues were framed?

The case was mine on trial and on appeal. I wanted to file a petition for certiorari. hadn't the panel gone outside the record? This was wrong, I railed. My partner at the time, John Williams, counseled despair. "The Court will never hear it. Judges love cops, and will do almost anything to protect them."

Someone on the Senate please ask Chatigny about this case. Even more than a decade later the decision in Lee v. Edwards strikes me as lawless. Why don't folks complain about judicial activism when it serves those in power?

Note: More on Chatigny. See Don Pesci.

Comments: (3)

  • Good for you, Pattis. Here's more on Chatigny: htt...
    Good for you, Pattis. Here's more on Chatigny:
    Posted on April 22, 2010 at 3:56 am by Don Pesci
  • Read your post on Chatigney’s rise to the second c...
    Read your post on Chatigney’s rise to the second circuit; another act of insanity by the “man” He ALWAYS treated me like shit and was rude, condescending and had an annoying habit of threatening sanctions all the time. He seemed more conservative and once told me my suits on behalf of cops were a ridiculous thing since “aren’t they all on the same side.” Put that in the dumbshit ignorant category
    Posted on April 23, 2010 at 2:49 am by j
  • I performed my civic duty yesterday by e-mailing m...
    I performed my civic duty yesterday by e-mailing my opposition to Chatigny's confirmation to all nineteen members of the Judiciary Committee. Got auto-replies from seven of them. That ain't bad, 8 or 9 would have been better.
    Tedious and time-consuming, in case you've never done this. It's easy to make mistakes.
    Also called 1/2 dozen senators, including Scott Brown. Of course, you always get a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed intern that don't know sh!t from sh!nola. "Your call is important to us." Puhleeeze!?! Didn't even try contacting Doddo Bird or LieberMouth. A waste of my time.
    Took the rest of the afternoon off.
    I'd be willing to bet Chatigny is a terror on the cocktail party circuit too; God's gift to the Booze Cruise, if you catch my drift. Do not know that to be a 'fact', and may be slanderous. But so be it. I'll never appear in his courtroom again: Doriss v. City of New Haven, 05-668 RNC. (And he will never appear in mine!?!) What a moron. I can say that u/1st Amendment; that's not one of the 'exclusions'. I can talk legalese too! Never, never misunderestimate the power of the written word.
    Let me put it this way: Chatigny is no Sonia SootyMayor, and I didn't really care for her pseudo-arrogant ways either. Wise Latina Woman, my a$$. We'll see how long this blind lady justice lasts before getting drummed off the 'high court'. Ha! What a farce this all is.
    It would be funnier if it was not so tragic. So let's just call it a 'tragi-comedy',...something like an oxymoron. (I always like that word.)
    Finally, Mr. Chatigny is no Louis Brandeis material. Nor ScAlitoes. I rest. 73 senators to go?!?
    Posted on April 23, 2010 at 4:00 am by William Doriss

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
What is the day of the week?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]