Court Rulings

Summary Judgment Civ.R 56 Breach of Contract Disability Discrimination Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Reasonable Accommodation Retaliation Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff was denied admission to defendant's college of medicine because he had previously matriculated at another medical school, not because of a disability or his legal action against his prior medical school. Moreover, plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation for admission to make himself otherwise qualified under the ADA. As such, plaintiff was never an enrolled student at defendant's college of medicine and thus no binding contract existed between them. Additionally, defendant's retention of the application fee was not unjust enrichment because the decision to decline admission was exercised with professional judgment. Lastly, declined admission is not actual, or fear of, physical peril as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the court issued summary judgment in favor of defendant on all claims.

The defendant appealed to this court from the trial court's judgment denying his application for reinstatement to the bar. The defendant had been suspended from the practice of law, upon presentment by the plaintiff, Disciplinary Counsel, following his conviction in federal court of obstruction of justice in connection with a public corruption scheme. The defendant also was convicted of other felony offenses, including racketeering, bribery and wire fraud, but those convictions were reversed on appeal. The defendant subsequently filed an application for reinstatement to the bar, and the trial court referred the application to the Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar for New Haven County pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 2- 53). The committee held an evidentiary hearing on the application, during which the defendant refused to answer direct questions regarding his conduct during and surrounding the events that resulted in the convic- tions that were reversed. The defendant also testified that he was inno- cent of any wrongdoing and that he had not committed the crime of obstruction of justice, focusing his testimony on multiple exhibits that he argued demonstrated his innocence. Following the hearing, the com- mittee issued a report in which it recommended that the defendant's application for reinstatement be denied on the ground that he lacked the requisite good moral character to practice law. In reaching its deci- sion, the committee found, inter alia, that the defendant's refusal to answer questions regarding the reversed convictions demonstrated a lack of honesty and candor, that his reinstatement could be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar and the administration of justice because he refused to accept responsibility for the obstruction of justice conviction, which strikes at the heart of the public trust in the legal profession, and that his failure to accept responsibility for his wrongdo- ing made rehab