DocketNumber: No. CV 01-0508535 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 396, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 228
Judges: SCHUMAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/10/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On remand, the Labor Board ordered the plaintiff to pay Siok $9,279.34 in attorney's fees and costs. (ROR, Item 7, pp. 3, 6.) The plaintiff appeals again to this court. The sole claim on appeal is that, insofar as the Labor Board ordered the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees incurred after June 15, 1993, the order was a clear abuse of discretion because, after that date, Siok's attorney "was no longer representing the complaining parties as an attorney before the Labor Board." (Plaintiff's Trial Brief, p. 4.)
The Labor Board found that, after June 15, 1993, Siok's "law firm was advising Mr. Siok even if attorneys did not appear at the Labor Board hearings." (ROR, Item 7, p. 5.) Accordingly, the Labor Board's award included fees for the period from June 15, 1993 through April 20, 1994, which is the last date for which Siok's attorneys billed their client for legal representation. (ROR, Item 4, Exhibit 5; Item 7, pp. 5-6.) The record does not reveal that any hearings before the Labor Board took place during this period and the parties agree that there were none. Accordingly, this case is not one in which Siok appeared pro se before the agency, a fact that would bar him from receiving attorney's fees for his own efforts. See Lev v. Lev,
The plaintiff, having failed to sustain the grounds for its appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
Carl J. Schuman Judge, Superior Court