Disbarred lawyer shuns judge’s order
Attorney who made antisemitic conspiracy comments fails to show up for court hearing
A divorce lawyer who was disbarred for making alleged antisemitic claims about a conspiracy to control the state court system failed to appear in court Wednesday after being found in contempt and being ordered to appear before a judge to account for what she did with tens of thousands of dollars of client funds.
Nickola Cunha, who is being represented by attorney Norm Pattis, did not show up to a hearing scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday before Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher, according to court officials.
The judge issued a capias order that takes effect at 3 p.m. Thursday — meaning she has until 3 p.m. to make an appearance in court. If she doesn’t, she’ll be taken into custody by court marshals and brought to court, according to court officials.
The judge who disbarred Nickola Cunha had ordered her to appear again in court Wednesday to explain why she had not complied with instructions concerning the closing of her law practice and why she withdrew $30,000 from a client account for her own alleged use after the judge told her not to do so.
“The court concludes that clear and convincing evidence shows that Ms. Cunha was unequivocally ordered not to take her clients’ money, knew about the order, and willfully took it anyway,” Moukawsher wrote in a decision. “She had a motive to take it too. Shortly after taking the money, she hired an attorney. She certainly needs one.”
Cunha was disbarred in January
for the maximum, allowable period of five years for persisting in asserting antisemitic claims about a judicial conspiracy. Moukawsher ordered Cunha to pay a $1,000 contempt fine for ignoring his orders. A trustee was appointed to close her law practice and the judicial branch’s chief disciplinary officer is looking into what happened to the $30,000 and other client funds that are supposed to be held
in trust.
“One purpose of the audit is to direct the chief disciplinary counsel — in cooperation with the trustee — to determine if Ms. Cunha stole her client’s $30,000. If she did, she will be in a lot more trouble,” the judge wrote in his ruling.
In addition to ordering Cunha not to withdraw money for her client trust accounts, Moukawsher ordered her to deliver to a trustee appointed to close her firm detailed information about clients, pending cases and billings as well as a list of all client accounts. She was specifically instructed not to withdraw or transfer client funds.
“If she hasn’t provided the information sought before the hearing, the court will consider other steps to ensure compliance, including possible additional monetary sanctions, incarceration to secure compliance, or both,” Moukawsher wrote in a decision.
“Still, the court isn’t ready to conclude Ms. Cunha stole her clients’ money. The trustee and the chief disciplinary counsel aren’t asking the court to do this just yet. Instead, the chief disciplinary counsel requested, and the court orders, an audit of Ms. Cunha’s dealing with her clients’ funds in general and the $30,000 in particular. The audit is to be completed and a report filed with the court no later than August 1, 2022. The chief disciplinary counsel is authorized in conducting the audit to subpoena any necessary witnesses and documents and to take depositions,” he wrote.
A number of lawyers and court officials said at the close of business Tuesday that Cunha had not met the court demands and that the hearing would proceed in Superior Court in Middletown.
Cunha said through her attorney during an earlier court appearance that Moukawsher cannot sanction her because the court lost jurisdiction over her the moment she was disbarred. Moukawsher also said in a written decision she has been inconsistent and “incredible” in explaining whether she understood she was not to withdraw client funds.
She is appealing the disbarment. In a written decision in January, Moukawsher said he was taking the unusual step of disbarring Cunha because of her behavior in behalf of a client in a bitter and protracted divorce, behavior that the judge said involved “empty and malicious” claims of abuse and antisemitic declarations to win an advantage for her client by “snarling the case into an un-triable mess.”
Until Moukawsher’s ruling,
Cunha, who has offices in Hamden, had practiced law since 1999. The divorce case involved a couple with children that has entered its third year, generated enormous fees for lawyers and various family relation’s trial professionals and captured the following of court regulars.
The case was referred to Moukawsher, who is assigned to preside over especially complex and contentious divorces, after Cunha accused the judge presiding over the divorce trial, Gerard I. Adelman, of bias against non-jews, bias against the disabled and other claims. When Cunha moved to disqualify Adelman, Moukawsher convened a hearing and told her to produce her proof.
According to Moukawsher’s decision, which reproduces portions of the transcript of the hearing, Cunha rambled for 30 pages or so. Cunha made claims against Adelman but had not produced anything that, in Moukawsher’s view, supported her assertions. Finally, Cunha expressed antisemitic and conspiracy claims, the decision says.
Cunha said she was relying on “the enormous amount of information and evidence that’s come to me” about the alleged conspiracy. Pressed by Moukawsher, she said, “when you start looking at the cases and you start looking at the professionals engaged in the cases, it is consistent and it supports that claim.” She said, “I have a list of cases ... So it’s a vicious circle.”
Moukawsher asked her to produce the list that would support her claim. Cunha rummaged through her computer put failed to produce one. A recess was called to allow her to search further. Finally, Cunha acknowledged she had no list.
“There — there is not, Judge,” Cunha said.
Cunha’s other allegations were dismissed after similar questioning.
Prior to the disbarment, when Moukawsher gave Cunha an opportunity to defend herself, she lashed out at the court.
“I find these proceedings to be intentionally harassing and intimidation and an attempt by Your Honor solely to shut me down for the corruption that I have raised before his Court,” she said, according to the record.
“Your Honor has engaged in malfeasance, gross malfeasance, I will not be intimidated. I will remind this court that your so-called historical writing Memorandum of Decision where you touch upon the history that it is, it is a joke and it is pathetic, and you should be ashamed or yourself for subjecting myself to that type of rhetoric. Frankly Judge, I am ashamed to even be sitting before you with the type of conduct that you have engaged in. You have engaged in material misrepresentation; you have lied to the public,” the record shows she said.