CT Trial Lawyers: Sandy Hook Claim “ill advised”

I’m proud to be a member of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association. I was very pleased to find the following email in my inbox this morning:

The following official statement has been authorized by the Executive Officers of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association and comes as a result of recent press announcements concerning the notice filed with the Connecticut Claims Commissioner requesting permission to sue the State as a result of the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

“CTLA joins with all other citizens in CT in mourning the tragic loss of life in Newtown. We believe that the timing and circumstances of this action are ill-advised. We will continue to extend our heartfelt sympathies to the victims of the Newtown tragedy and we remain committed to joining the efforts of countless individuals in CT and around the country to find ways to assist the victims and families affected by this tragedy.”

Reading comments on various websites prompted me to write yesterday’s post. The majority of attorneys in the Connecticut Bar do outstanding things for their clients and communities. I’m happy to see the CTLA issue this statement on behalf of its members. I support it entirely.

6 thoughts on “CT Trial Lawyers: Sandy Hook Claim “ill advised”

  1. I agree also. Don’t you think this was done strictly for advertising purposes only? I can’t think of any legitimate claim against the state at this point. However, by submitting the notice, the lawyer has gotten his name out there and has not run afoul of any ethical rules against solicitation. That’s why he jumped on it now: to be the first lawyer associated with “Sandy Hook litigation.”

  2. The timing is uncomfortable as are the cirucmstances. What I am wondering, though, is this: We’ve been told repeatedly by those who investigated that this school was exemplary when it came to implementing all required safety protocols, that the shooter got into the school through a violent entry. Therefore, the claim can only be that the State sets protocols and that the required protocols were inadequate in this day an age. Is there any merit to the claim on this basis? If so, isn’t there some reason to pursue this if the quest on behalf of the parents goes beyond money except for the fact that money is frequently the only way we get people to sit up and take notice that change is required? I’d hate a potentially valid lawsuit (though distasteful to many) to be diminished with the old ‘ambulance chasing lawyer’ shtick.

  3. Thank you for writing your last two posts; since we are not in Conn., I was unaware of the lawsuit threat, but I think you explained the situation very well and handled it quite deftly. Hopefully, other lawyers will respond similarly. Every one’s heart goes out to the victims–those who were killed and those touched by the tragedy in any way. It was truly a very sad day.

Comments are closed.