From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Matza v. Matza
Connecticut Supreme Court
627 A.2d 414 (1993)
In June 1988, Jane W. Matza (defendant) and Richard A. Matza (plaintiff) began dissolution-of-marriage proceedings. Jane was first represented by Gary I. Cohen in the proceedings. However, Cohen filed a motion with the court to withdraw his representation on the ground that he was unable to provide Jane with effective representation. Cohen’s motion was granted, and Arnold M. Potash became Jane’s attorney. However, Jane discharged Potash, which resulted in a trial continuance so that Jane could obtain a third attorney, J. Daniel Sagarin. After an additional continuance, the trial was set for May 16, 1990, in front of Judge Ottaviano. On the day of the trial, Jane tried to discharge Sagarin, who moved to withdraw his representation per Jane’s request. The matter was referred to Judge Mihalakos, who denied the motion. The trial then began but was suspended for the parties to negotiate a settlement. The negotiations were unsuccessful, and the trial was set to continue on June 17, 1991. Sagarin then moved to withdraw his representation again. Upon Sagarin’s request, Judge Mihalakos considered the motion instead of Judge Ottaviano, so that Jane would not be prejudiced in the divorce proceedings. Although Jane objected, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which Sagarin stated that continuing his representation would result in aiding Jane’s fraudulent or improper conduct. Sagarin also requested an in camera review of the affidavit he had submitted in support of his motion. The request was granted. Upon reviewing the affidavit, Judge Mihalakos learned that Jane wanted to submit a financial affidavit that Sagarin believed to be false based on Jane’s refusal to sign the affidavit and based on a call he received from another attorney with knowledge on the matter. Judge Mihalakos granted Sagarin’s motion. A judgment on the dissolution-of-marriage proceeding was finally rendered on February 21, 1991. Jane submitted a motion for a mistrial, which the trial court denied. Jane appealed the decision. As part of the appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court considered whether Sagarin was entitled to withdraw his representation.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Borden, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.