In re Cunha

Syllabus

In these consolidated appeals, the respondent attorney appealed, in the first case, from the judgment of the trial court ordering a trustee to disburse funds from the respondent's fiduciary accounts following her disbarment from the practice of law and, in a second case, from the judgment of the trial court dismissing as moot her action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding attorney's fees allegedly owed to her. The respondent claimed, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to have permitted third parties to intervene in the postdisbarment proceedings to settle a dispute over attorney's fees. Held: Contrary to the respondent's claim that, because the underlying disciplinary proceedings against her were initiated pursuant to statute (§ 51-84) and the rule of practice (§ 2-45), the trial court's jurisdiction was exclusively limited to determining what discipline should be imposed on the respondent, the trial court, pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 2-64) and its inherent authority, had subject matter jurisdiction over the respondent's client files for the purpose of protecting the interests of her clients and unfettered power to act as situations may seem to require to achieve that purpose, including granting permissive intervention to third parties. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting permissive intervention in the postdisbarment action to two former clients and an insurance company holding disputed funds, as the intervention was timely and likely to expedite the resolution of the underlying proceedings, the intervenors had a clear interest in the controversy, and the necessity and value of the intervention were apparent because the resolution of the intervenors' fee dispute was necessary before the court could completely determine the proper distribu- tion of the respondent's funds to protect her former clients. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-64 and its inherent au