## Facts

- Nick P. Nicholas owned a 2.104-acre parcel at 92 Hulda Hill Road in Wilton, Connecticut, located in a two-acre residential zone.
- The parcel was shown as Lot No. 1 on subdivision map #2829, which the Wilton Planning and Zoning Commission approved in 1969.
- In 1975 (before Nicholas purchased the parcel), Wilton’s town counsel, Robert A. Fuller, wrote an opinion letter to the town planner stating that a zoning permit could be issued for the lot under the zoning regulations in effect at that time.
- Fuller later resigned as Wilton’s town counsel in 1986.
- In September 1999, Nicholas applied to the Wilton zoning enforcement officer for a zoning permit to build a single-family residence on the property.
- The zoning enforcement officer denied the application, relying on a legal opinion from the town’s land-use counsel concluding the parcel was not a valid building lot under the applicable regulations.
- In October 1999, Nicholas appealed the denial to the Wilton Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
- In January 2000, the ZBA denied Nicholas’s appeal, agreeing with the zoning enforcement officer that the lot was not valid for building and sustaining the permit denial.
- Nicholas filed an administrative appeal to the Connecticut Superior Court under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8, claiming the ZBA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion.
- Nicholas retained Fuller—who authored the 1975 opinion letter—as counsel in the Superior Court appeal.
- The ZBA moved to disqualify Fuller under Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients), arguing Fuller’s prior municipal work and the 1975 opinion were the same as, or at least substantially related to, the current dispute and that Nicholas’s position was materially adverse to the town’s interests.

## Issues

1. Does Rule 1.9 require disqualification of Nicholas’s counsel, a former town counsel, because he previously issued a town-counsel opinion letter about the same property and zoning question?
2. Did the ZBA act illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion in upholding the zoning enforcement officer’s denial of a zoning permit on the ground that the parcel was not a valid building lot?

## Decision

- The court denied the ZBA’s motion to disqualify Fuller, rejecting the argument that Rule 1.9 imposes a blanket ban on a former municipal lawyer appearing against the town without consent.
- The court concluded that the circumstances did not show the type of former-client confidentiality risk that warrants disqualification under Rule 1.9.
- On the merits, the court dismissed Nicholas’s zoning appeal and upheld the ZBA’s decision sustaining the zoning enforcement officer’s denial of the zoning permit.
- The court found the ZBA’s determination that the lot was not a valid building lot had record support and was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 1.9 bars a lawyer from representing a new client against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter when the new client’s interests are materially adverse, unless the former client gives informed consent.
- Disqualification under Rule 1.9 is not automatic merely because the lawyer previously represented a municipality; the court considers whether the earlier and later matters are sufficiently related and whether the current representation presents a real risk of using former-client confidential information.
- A former town counsel’s opinion letter interpreting zoning rules for a specific property is typically not treated as confidential municipal information in the way internal strategy or nonpublic facts might be, and that reduces the basis for disqualification.
- In a zoning appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8, the Superior Court does not retry the case; it reviews the administrative record and determines whether the ZBA acted illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of discretion.
- A ZBA decision must be sustained if it is reasonably supported by the record and reflects a permissible reading of the zoning regulations, even if other readings are possible.
- Prior subdivision approval and prior municipal legal advice do not, by themselves, guarantee a current right to a zoning permit; absent an issued permit and substantial reliance, a landowner generally cannot claim a vested right that prevents present enforcement of zoning requirements.

## Conclusion

In *Nicholas v. Wilton Zoning Board of Appeals*, the Superior Court refused to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney—Wilton’s former town counsel who had authored a 1975 opinion letter about the same lot—because Rule 1.9 required more than a generalized claim of adversity and did not support disqualification on these facts; the court also dismissed the zoning appeal, holding that the ZBA reasonably determined from the record that the parcel was not a valid building lot and therefore did not act illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion in sustaining the zoning enforcement officer’s permit denial.


Nicholas v. Wilton Zoning Board of Appeals, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 386 (2001)