A defense of a defense attorney
The purpose of this op-ed is not to question the constitutional underpinnings that form the basis of Attorney Lindy Urso’s federal lawsuit contesting Gov. Ned Lamont’s Executive Order requiring all citizens to carry and/or wear some type of mask. That lawsuit triggered a vehement denunciation by Maggie Koester in her op-ed of May 5.
The thrust of her position was that she considered the coronavirus lawsuit to be irresponsible, selfish and unethical. Attorney Urso responded with an op-ed dated May 12, 2020, and Ms. Koester countered with a May 15 op-ed. Ms. Koester’s complaint can be reduced to the following 3 sentences: “So why is he doing this? Is it to make a name for himself in an area outside of his expertise of criminal defense? If so, he’s doing so at the expense of the health and safety, and possibly the lives of countless Connecticut residents. That is irresponsible, selfish and unethical.”
Since each of the parties has had their day in the op-ed court of public opinion, the matter should be put to rest.
However, I cannot allow Ms. Koester’s description of Attorney Urso as irresponsible, selfish and unethical to go unchallenged. How in the world is the filing of a federal lawsuit irresponsible, selfish and unethical? The most problematic adjective used to describe Attorney Urso is ... unethical. Ethical is defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary as “conforming to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group.” That is exactly what Attorney Urso has done for the last 22 years. His commitment to that principle is attested to by his clients and colleagues.
I have practiced law in this area for approximately 58 years. I first met Mr. Urso when he was admitted to the Connecticut Bar. That was 22 years ago. During that time, I have never heard a prosecutor, an attorney or a judge call into question attorney Urso’s ethical standards. Quite the opposite, he is a terrific lawyer who abides by the legal standards of our profession. The pejorative description of Attorney Urso as unethical is obscene.
Attorney Urso is one of Connecticut’s top criminal defense attorneys who readily accepts Pro Bono cases. He defends Pro Bono clients with the same vigor and legal acumen that he dispenses with his retained clients.
There is no question that reasonable minds can legally parse Attorney Urso’s lawsuit and arrive at different conclusions. That is the essence of our judicial system. We resolve disputes within the framework of the rule of law. That is exactly what Attorney Urso has done. It is in stark contrast to the quasi-vigilantes who are protesting the mask issue. These people wear camouflage outfits and are armed with deadly weapons. Their actions are best described as mob rule. Attorney Urso didn’t go to the streets armed and dressed in a menacing outfit and demand that his position be adapted. To his credit he chose the avenue known as the rule of law. A federal judge will undoubtedly render a decision, and the parties will accept the result.
Because Attorney Urso followed the rule of law, he should be commended, not condemned.
I return to my initial question; how does the filing of a federal lawsuit indicate unethical behavior? Barring a settlement or withdrawal, there are two results that can be obtained with this lawsuit.
1. Attorney Urso is successful. A federal judge agrees with his legal position and enters judgment. Does that make the federal judge “irresponsible, selfish and unethical? The answer is selfevident.
2. Attorney Urso is unsuccessful, and his lawsuit is dismissed. It is a nullity; nothing more than mere allegations that were not sustained. The status quo remains and the lives of not one Connecticut resident has been affected.
Finally, Ms. Koester tells us her favorite literary character is Atticus Finch (“To Kill A Mockingbird,” Harper Lee) I wonder if Atticus Finch would have called Thurgood Marshall irresponsible, selfish and unethical when he challenged the the status quo of separate, but equal, in the field of education. My belief is that Atticus Finch would have been on the wrong side of Brown vs. Board of Education. As we discovered in Lee’s “Go Set A Watchman,” Ms. Koester’s favorite literary character, Atticus Finch, was a racist who attended at least one Klu Klux Klan meeting.
As Susan B. Anthony said: “cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about reform.”