Tag: news

2026 Happy New Year: Can You Trust Connecticut’s Digital Court Records? No. The Connecticut Judicial Branch’s E-Services System Is Broken…

Can you trust Connecticut’s digital court records? After 20 years as a litigant and ADA advocate, my answer is no.
The “No Attorney of Record” Problem

The Writ Summons form has a dedicated field: “Individual Attorney Name.” In case after case, it is left blank. No individual attorney of record ever files an appearance only a firm registration (Type F), with no identifiable person (Type A). Search the Judicial Branch Attorney Lookup for that firm today, and in many cases it returns: “No Records Found.”

No individual attorney means no one to hold accountable. No one to answer for defective service. No one to sanction for robo-signing, forgeries, fabricated documents, and misconduct.
No attorney present in court representing the plaintiff. Just smoke and mirrors — lawyer arguments with no witness testimony, no evidentiary hearings, no due process.

Individual appearances never filed. Attorney of record violations never cured across probate appeals, family court, foreclosure, and housing court.

Search for the firm years later: “No Records Found.”

A firm that doesn’t exist can’t be held accountable. A 2024 firm entity creation doesn’t cure a 2015 attorney-of-record defect.

The Public Access Failure
December 23, 2025: I tried to observe a hearing via the Judicial Branch’s YouTube livestream. It failed repeatedly. Only 50% was discernible. The court proceeded anyway.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees open courts. When technology fails, and proceedings continue, constitutional rights are violated.

The Hidden Oversight
The Judicial Branch website hides its oversight committees’ archive links in HTML code, including the Public Trust Task Force, Public Trust Commission, Advisory Commission on Wrongful Convictions, Judicial Performance Evaluation Program, and Americans with Disabilities Committee, among many others.


The pages exist. Only the public paths were severed.
The irony: an ADA-bound entity hiding its own ADA oversight body.

Why This Matters
These aren’t glitches. They’re design choices that favor insiders. Ordinary families bear the cost.
When records can’t be verified, rights can’t be protected.

Tomorrow: We start giving receipts. 20 years of documented patterns of omissions, concealment, law and rule violations, and damages caused by private and public entities to the public: children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, minority groups, and many, many others.

In some cases, a pre-status conference meeting. Private conversation between the judge and a law firm member before hearings. No witnesses present. No attorney of record filed in the case. Connecticut Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.9, bars a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications about a pending or impending matter. Then the judge rules in favor of the law firm…

The Real Facts Unsealed
https://therealfactsunsealed.com/

Why a Law Firm Cannot Be an “Attorney of Record”

The Core Issue A strict textual analysis of the 2025 Connecticut Practice Book reveals a fundamental legal truth: A law firm is an entity, not a person. Because it lacks a physical body and conscience, a firm cannot fulfill the strict role of “Attorney of Record.”

1. The Dispositive Provision: Signatures (§ 4-2a) The clearest barrier is Section 4-2(a), which mandates that every pleading be signed by an attorney “in the attorney’s individual name.”

  • Analysis: A firm has no “individual name” and cannot hold a pen. Consequently, a corporate signature (e.g., “Smith Law, LLC”) has no legal effect.

2. Structural Barriers: Admission (§ 2-8) Section 2-8 creates “human” qualifications for admission that an entity cannot meet:

  • Biological: Applicants must be citizens and at least 18 years old.
  • Educational: Applicants must hold a J.D. and pass the bar exam.
  • Ethical: Applicants must have “good moral character” and take the Attorney’s Oath. An entity cannot swear an oath or exercise conscience.

3. Distinct Definitions (§ 60-4) The Practice Book explicitly separates the two concepts:

  • “Counsel of record” includes attorneys.
  • “Entity” includes firms and corporations. By defining them separately, the rules make it legally impossible for the “Entity” to be the “Counsel.”

Conclusion: While a firm may be listed on a docket, the specific powers of an attorney signing, swearing, and appearing belong strictly to the natural person.

DISCLAIMER: Educational use only. This is not legal advice. Generated by AI; verify all citations against the 2025 CT Practice Book. Consult an attorney.

A Law Firm Cannot Be Attorney of Record Download

2025 CONNECTICUT PRATICE BOOK

Verify the Rules for Yourself Don’t just take our word for it—read the primary source directly. The 2025 Connecticut Practice Book is available for free on the official Connecticut Judicial Branch website. To confirm the structural barrier between a law firm and an attorney:

Check Section 4-2(a): Read the explicit requirement that every pleading must be signed in the “attorney’s individual name.” This provision structurally prohibits a firm (an entity) from signing for itself.

Review Section 2-8: See the “human” qualifications for bar admission—such as age, citizenship, and character—that no corporation can ever satisfy.

Compare Section 60-4: Look at how the rules separately define “Counsel of Record” (the attorney) versus “Entity” (the firm), cementing the legal wall between the two.

Reading the text in black and white is the best way to understand why the Administrative Entity (the firm) always requires a Legal Actor (the individual) to validate its work.

PB_Mobile_2025Download

JurisTypeDownload


https://www.jud.ct.gov/attorneyfirminquiry/JurisType.aspx