CT Attorney Edward Nusbaum Betrayal?
Grievance Exposes Serious Ethical Misconduct Claims
By Richard Luthmann
Who would hire a lawyer who would tell all their secrets?
Karen Riordan has formally accused Westport, Connecticut, Attorney Edward Nusbaum of grave ethical misconduct. She filed a claim with the Connecticut Attorney Grievance Committee. Her charges include violating attorney-client confidentiality, loyalty, fiduciary duty, and ethical norms.
Specifically, Riordan states that Nusbaum, once her divorce lawyer, betrayed her because of a fee dispute. “Attorney Nusbaum is accused of disclosing confidential information about his former client, Karen Riordan, to gain an advantage in a fee dispute,” the papers say
She claims he gave the sensitive materials to her ex-husband, Christopher Ambrose, and his lawyer, Alexander J. Cuda. This act, she says, shows Attorney Edward Nusbaum was “playing for ‘Team Ambrose’ by providing confidential information to the Needle Cuda law firm, [information] which he would never have obtained but for his previous attorney-client relationship – in the same case where he was previously counsel of record for Ms. Riordan.” [emphasis in original].
With nearly 50 years in law, Riordan asserts that Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s ethical breaches are especially severe. She urges the Grievance Committee to impose strict discipline. Her grievance explicitly calls for Nusbaum’s disbarment to protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship.
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas J. O’Neill presided over the hearing where the Nusbaum-suppied information and evidence was offered to the court.
Riordan has previously asked the Superior Court to summarily disbar Nusbaum. The Connecticut law gives judges that power in the Practice Book, but it is rarely used.
Former Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher disbarred attorney Nickola Cunha in January 2022. She told Judge Moukawsher that she thought his fellow judge, Gerald Adelman, showed bias.
She said, among other biases, that Adelman showed bias against those who were not Jewish who appeared in his court. Former Judge Moukawsher ruled that Cunha had lied and presented an unfounded and dangerous “Jewish” conspiracy.
Cunha is appealing the disbarment decision.
Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s Betrayal of Client Trust
Riordan’s grievance against Nusbaum highlights a profound betrayal of trust. She accuses him of sharing her client information to advance himself in a fee dispute. This breach opposes the core principle of attorney-client confidentiality.
She details Nusbaum’s shift in loyalty from legally representing her to aiding her ex-husband, Ambrose. Attorney Edward Nusbaum, she claims, used his insider knowledge against her. This act, Riordan stresses, completely neglected his lawyerly duties by telling her secrets he knew would be used in Open Court.
“The documents Attorney Nusbaum provided are not public records. It is not a final decision, and Ms. Riordan is not a party to the dispute. With no prior knowledge or warning, these private records were presented to the Court as public documents with conclusions drawn to malign Ms. Riordan’s character and allow Attorney Nusbaum to jockey for an advantage in a pending fee dispute,” the grievance says.
Nusbaum’s ethical breaches are more than technical legal violations. They signify a profound betrayal of the entire attorney-client relationship.
Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s Billing Fraud Accusations
Riordan accuses Nusbaum of billing fraud, a critical ethical violation. She asserts he worked against her interests, billing nearly $100,000 for dishonest work.
The Frank Report reported Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s unexplanably significant billing discrepancies, suggesting deceit in Nusbaum’s invoicing practices.
Fraud? CT Atty Edward Nusbaum Billed for Scores of Phone Calls and Emails That Don’t Match GAL Hurwitz Billings –Criminal Charges May Result
She contrasts Nusbaum’s billing with GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz’s records. The grievance notes significant differences in their invoiced calls. This visible gap raises doubts about Nusbaum’s billing legitimacy, suggesting his intent to inflate his billable activities. Riordan charges Nusbaum with systematically manipulating his billing to his advantage. As Frank Report’s earlier investigation uncovered:
Nusbaum represented Riordan from May 2020 to August 2020 — four months. Nusbaum’s invoices to Riordan include 36 phone calls to GAL Hurwitz.
But Hurwitz only billed for speaking to Nusbaum 12 times.
To be clear, Nusbaum billed Riordan 36 times for calls to Horwitz, but Hurwitz billed Riordan for only 12 phone calls with him.
There are 24 Nusbaum phone calls not found on Hurwitz’s bills.
Unless someone can come up with another explanation why two attorneys who both bill by the 1/10th hour would have such a discrepancy, Nusbaum billed Riordan for 24 fictional calls.
It becomes more apparent why Nusbaum wanted a “no-discovery” clause.
Two-thirds of Nusbaum’s phone call billings (24/36) do not match GAL Hurwitz’s billings.
Yet if they were really speaking on the phone, they both would be billing Riordan.
Riordan’s grievance paints Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s billing as unethical and financially damaging to her. She implies Nusbaum abused his attorney position for financial gain.
Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s Concealment Tactics
Riordan accuses Nusbaum of using dishonest tactics to hide his alleged billing fraud. She cites his engagement letter and “no discovery” clause as tools to exploit clients.
“Attorney Nusbaum has his clients sign a patently unethical, predatory, and illegal engagement letter [showing] intent and a plan to veil his attorney misconduct, legal malpractice, and fraudulent and tortuous conduct in “mandatory” arbitration proceedings. It is well established that contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable…Such unenforceable contractual provisions include Mr. Nusbaum’s transparent attempt to stifle his clients from bringing his attorney misconduct, legal malpractice, and fraudulent and tortuous conduct to light in the Connecticut courts,” the papers say.
These devices, Riordan argues, prevent most clients from verifying their billing is honest. Riordan says she was lucky to have checked the GAL reports.
She states that Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s “no discovery” arbitration clause violates public policy. It aims to shield his misconduct from legal scrutiny, and she claims it is unethical.
Riordan suggests Nusbaum’s tactics are not just shady but also of questionable legality. She argues they harm clients and contradict legal ethics.
Legal Standards Violated
Riordan outlines the professional rules and case law Nusbaum allegedly violated. She references the Rules of Professional Conduct, stressing Nusbaum’s breach of client confidentiality and loyalty as a serious violation of legal and ethical standards.
Specifically, Riordan points to Rule 1.6 on confidentiality and Rule 1.9 on duties to former clients. Attorney Edward Nusbaum, she argues, used privileged information against her, violating the letter and spirit of these rules. More than that, she asserts Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s knowing provision of private documents to Ambrose and Attorney Cuda brazenly and willfully violated confidentiality rules.
She also refers to Rule 8.4 on professional misconduct and the case of Flannery v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC. A lawyer owes an unyielding fiduciary duty to current and former clients, and the Connecticut Supreme Court is crystal clear on this point. Riordan’s grievance highlights Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s transgressions.
Riordan also emphasizes that a lawyer and a client should have a special legal relationship. She demonstrates how Nusbaum’s conduct is at odds with professional and ethical standards and positive public perceptions of attorneys.
Previously, Art Voice questioned whether Attorney Edward Nusbaum looked “foolish” because of his legal threats delivered to journalist Frank Parlato, Nusbaum was miffed because of unflattering, yet accurate, reporting by the renowned investigative journalist.
Riordan’s Recommendation
Karen Riordan wants Attorney Edward Nusbaum punished and recommends disbarment. She emphasizes the gravity of his alleged misconduct and argues that only disbarment can address Nusbaum’s most severe ethical violations. She stresses the need to protect the public and uphold legal integrity and trust in the justice system, particularly the Fairfield County, Connecticut Family Law Bar.
The Attorney Grievance Committee does not have to follow Riordan’s recommendations even if they find Attorney Edward Nusbaum has violated ethical rules. If the matter is serious, they may send it to the Connecticut Supreme Court and seek Attorney Edward Nusbaum’s suspension or disbarment.
Attorney Edward Nusbaum will have a chance to respond to the charges.
This happens a lot with unethical lawyers it’s like getting inside information i’m going through the same problem
How could you ever win a poker hand when everybody knows your hand
The short answer is you can’t
My childhood friend and former attorney also threw the fight at zero hour because the judge wanted him to then 15 years later he shows up in the Probate Department after putting a bogus amendment in my mother's trust behind the scenes to favor my three brothers where another racketeering judge he was connected to stole my inheritance and pass it around to seven attorneys $200,000 Plus just like years before withholding my child support for 19 years. Then they disbarred my amazing lawyer and put two other lawyers on the benches temporary judges so I couldn't use them anymore and then conflicted my two divorce lawyers and on it goes in racketeering land of personal family Vendetta. Family Court scumbags are the little brothers of the same scumbags who show up to Probate Court laying in wait because Psychopaths play the long game. Then the judge put a lien on my name for daring to show up to court and use my ADA rights to accommodations after low income shaming me and saying an elder woman could be burned out of her house in front of God and everybody but no big deal.