## Facts

- Margaret Kus retained attorney Charles J. Irving under a contingent fee agreement concerning proceeds of a $400,000 life-insurance policy on her deceased husband.
- The agreement provided a 25% fee if the matter resolved before suit and 33% if suit was brought.
- Kus alleged Irving had already received the policy proceeds but nonetheless filed suit to obtain the higher percentage.
- Irving disbursed $270,692.26 to Kus and retained $135,365.63 as his fee; Kus alleged the retained amount exceeded what the agreement allowed.
- Kus sued Irving and two other attorneys, Narcy Z. Dubicki and Garon Camassar, who were Irving’s partners in a registered limited liability partnership (LLP).
- Dubicki and Camassar submitted affidavits stating they had no knowledge of Irving’s dealings with Kus until after the matter concluded, did not supervise or control Irving in the matter, and did not share in Irving’s fee under the partnership agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether partners in a registered LLP may be held personally liable for another partner’s alleged wrongful conduct when they neither participated in nor supervised the matter and did not benefit from it.
2. Whether Rule 5.1 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct can impose civil liability on partners beyond the limits set by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Dubicki and Camassar.
- The court held Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327(c) shields LLP partners from personal liability for liabilities arising from another partner’s conduct in the course of partnership business.
- The court held § 34-327(d)’s exception did not apply because there was no evidence that Dubicki or Camassar committed their own negligence or misconduct, or that Irving acted under their direct supervision or control.
- The court rejected the argument that Rule 5.1 could expand civil liability beyond the statute on the undisputed record.

## Legal Principles

- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-327(c), an LLP partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly, for debts, obligations, or liabilities chargeable to the partnership or another partner arising during the LLP’s registration.
- Under § 34-327(d), an LLP partner remains liable for the partner’s own negligence, wrongful acts, or misconduct, and for acts of persons under the partner’s direct supervision or control.
- On summary judgment, once the movant supports the motion with affidavits or other evidence, the nonmovant must produce evidentiary material showing a genuine issue of material fact; allegations in pleadings alone are insufficient.
- Professional-conduct rules do not, without supporting facts tied to statutory exceptions (such as direct supervision or control), create vicarious civil liability inconsistent with the LLP liability statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that, absent evidence of personal wrongdoing or direct supervision or control, partners in a registered LLP are statutorily protected from personal liability for another partner’s alleged misconduct, and summary judgment was proper for the uninvolved partners.


Kus v. Irving, 736 A.2d 946 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)