The plaintiff in this lawsuit was a state representative in the Connecticut General Assembly. She serves as the assistant majority leader of the House, and is serving her third nonconsecutive term. The defendant, a Democrat, was elected to office in 2011. Pavalock’s conflict of interest was so blatant that the defendant’s defense attorney filed a motion to disqualify her from representing the plaintiff. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the court reversed that ruling.
The plaintiff moved to disqualify Attorney Cara Pavalock from the case. Plaintiff Cara Pavalock objected, claiming that the appearance of impropriety in the oral argument was enough to cause her to be disqualified. The court agreed, citing a number of cases, to rule on the disqualification motion. The plaintiff argued that Pavalock did not represent her client in a way that was consistent with her ethics code.
The state of Connecticut recognizes Pavalock’s expertise in family law. She was born in Bristol, Connecticut, and obtained a law degree at St. Thomas University in Miami. She also has an MA in Taxation from Georgetown University. She is licensed to practice law in both Connecticut and Florida, and is the owner of Pavalock Law in New Haven. She is also a member of the Women’s Bar Association.
The case has caused controversy. Pavalock-D’Amato sold her Rossi Drive home last fall. She posted about the sale on Facebook on Dec. 7. The Facebook post sparked backlash in some circles. However, the attorney said that the house is where she spends the majority of her time, and it does not have any legislative tags. Although the complaint may have been overturned, it still remains open.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Attorney Pavalock should be disqualified because she represents a legislator. The plaintiff argued that her representation of the defendant creates an appearance of impropriety. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not expressly require that a lawyer avoid appearances of impropriety. Moreover, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to the Rules of Professional Conduct.