Sharing Sandy Hook medical records could get Alex Jones’ attorney suspended
NEWTOWN — High profile New Haven attorney Norm Pattis should lose his ability to practice law for six months for improperly sharing highly confidential medical records of Sandy Hook families in the Alex Jones defamation case, a top state attorney recommends.
“(The families’ medical records), to which Pattis was entrusted, required the utmost care and attention as inappropriate disclosure would have caused irreparable harm,” writes Brian Staines, Connecticut’s chief disciplinary counsel, in a court document. “Pattis, being aware of the protective order, his possession of highly confidential-attorney eyes only medical reports, failed to provide even the minimal amount of care when instructing his associate to transfer all of this discovery to (Jones’ former lead bankruptcy attorney Kyung) Lee, an unauthorized recipient.”
Staines is referring to an incident that made national headlines in August during the first Jones defamation trial in Texas. During that trial, an attorney for parents of a slain Sandy Hook boy who Jones defamed revealed that the lawyer had inadvertently been sent by Jones’ attorney Jones’ cellphone calls and the protected medical records of eight Sandy Hook families and an FBI who had sued Jones in Connecticut in a separate but similar case.
Andino Reynal, a Texasbased attorney who was defending Jones in court that day, called the surprising disclosure “the worst day of my legal career.”
Staines recommends Reynal be suspended for three months from practicing law in Connecticut for his role in the leak.
The improper disclosure of the families’ medical records started in the New Haven office of Pattis, who represented Jones in the second Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit in Waterbury. That trial ended last month with a $965 million verdict for the families.
“The mental state of Pattis at the time of the transfer can only be described as intentional,” Staines wrote in a memo to state Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, who will decide Pattis’ discipline in mid-January. “There is clear and convincing evidence that he was aware of his obligations under the protective order. He nevertheless instructed his associate to transfer the discovery to Lee without any analysis as to whether Lee was authorized to receive the information.”
Pattis, who has a clean disciplinary record, argued in court papers that he did nothing wrong by sharing information in the Connecticut case with Jones’ lead bankruptcy attorney, arguing that Lee was the attorney of record at the time.
Pattis refused to answer questions on the witness stand about his role in the leak during a late August hearing, claiming his rights under the Fifth Amendment 25 times.
“Pattis has failed to acknowledge (the) wrongful nature of his conduct in this disciplinary proceeding,” Staines wrote. “Pattis did email (the families’) attorney advising of the disclosure and indicating that ‘responsibility for it falls on my shoulders.’ ”
On Thursday, Pattis told Hearst Connecticut Media, “We’ll address the merits of this filing in court, and, if necessary, on appeal.”
At stake is Pattis’ ability to represent high profile clients at a time in his 30year career where he is at a crossroads. In addition to running Jones’ post-trial appeals in Connecticut, Pattis is representing Joseph Biggs, a member of the Proud Boys group, who’s charged with seditious conspiracy in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
The state disciplinary attorney said there was no excuse for a lawyer with Pattis’ experience and knowledge of high-profile cases to mishandle “highly personal information, including the plaintiff ’s medical histories, psychiatric records, and information concerning the plaintiff ’s private social media accounts.”
The consequence, Staines argued, is that the families had to suffer the knowledge that their private records had been leaked.
“There was a period of about two weeks where information was coming in and the (families) could only assume the worse,” Staines wrote. “Pattis should have been on heightened duty that this information had to be handled with the utmost care.”
As a result, Staines said, the families’ “trust was violated and their vulnerability was exposed in the worst possible way.”
“Pattis has substantial experience in the practice of law. He is well known as an attorney that handles high profile cases on a regular basis,” Staines wrote. “He was required to appreciate the consequences of his actions when he made the decision to release plaintiff ’s discovery.”