Humbled that such a great guy, former New York Giant and Pittsburgh Steeler, die-hard Greenwich Republican and good friend would show his support for me like this . . . thanks Bob! #LynchForSenate
In one of the more shameful opinions to be released by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the years-long matter of Greenwich business man and former NFL football player Bob Simms. Origins of the legal controversy are in Connecticut family court. A modification in a decades old divorce judgment modified support obligations. When Simms later learned that trial and appellate counsel had knowingly concealed the existence of a significant inheritance, he pursued legal action against opposing counsel.
The trial court, after acknowledging the validity of the plaintiff's claims, ruled that the attorneys were protected by immunity. Both the Appellate Court and Supreme Court upheld that lower court decision. Even though federal case law dictates that "zealous advocacy" is subordinate to "candor to the tribunal," our state chose to protect the bar, blocking Mr. Simms from any recovery. Grievances subsequently filed by Simms with the Statewide Grievance Committee were dismissed, even though the court record itself contained acknowledgements of the misconduct. These are among the items that scores of families have complained about in recent years, but few in our legislature have shown meaningful interest in fixing.
Read the Connecticut Supreme Court opinion >> Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (2013)