Source: http://rc.com/people/ThomasJDonlon.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:59:44+00:00

Document:
Thomas Donlon’s practice focuses on appellate and complex trial matters. He is a member of the firm's Appellate Team within the Business Litigation Group.
Tom has successfully prepared briefs and presented arguments in various federal Courts of Appeals as well as state appellate courts in both Connecticut and New York. These appeals have involved multimillion-dollar cases covering diverse topics, including health care fraud, securities, anti-trust, bankruptcy, employment, insurance, contract and construction disputes, condemnation, land use, and environmental regulation. Tom appears regularly before the Second Circuit, where he won a precedent-setting case limiting state immunity in bankruptcy cases. He also has handled cases before the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuits.
In the Connecticut Supreme Court, Tom won a series of cases of first impression under the state wetlands protection statute, defining the scope of private actions, the limits on special use exceptions, and the entitlement to attorney's fees. He won an appeal which established the state’s rule of priorities in foreclosure actions. He also won an appeal of a multimillion-dollar lease termination dispute involving a major defense contractor. In the New York appellate courts, he was successful on the appeal upholding the largest condemnation award against the State of New York for over $125 million plus interet. Tom handled significant cases regarding the duties of insurance companies in hurricane and fire damages as well as a number of construction disputes. He has represented individuals pro bono before both the Second Circuit and the Connecticut Supreme Court on issues involving prisoner and family rights.
Tom is involved in all aspects of complex litigation in trial courts, with a concentration on motion practice, particularly complex dispositive motions requiring the briefing of challenging legal issues. Working with other members of the firm’s litigation group, his cases have run the gamut of civil litigation, including the representation of one of America's largest corporations in an international contract dispute, the defense of insurance companies against bad faith claims, the enforcement of arbitration agreements against class action attack, defense of Native American corporations, disputes over major government construction contracts, and enforcement of penalties and attorney’s fees in bankruptcy. He litigated a series of Daubert motions in patent cases which significantly assisted the successful resolution of the matters and has also assisted in a number of land use and environmental cases in support of the firm’s practice in those areas. he was an integral part of the land use team litigating a major RLUIPA case.
Tom was an attorney on active duty with the U.S. Coast Guard for over 20 years before coming to the firm. He served as the senior government appellate counsel, responsible for all Coast Guard appeals nationwide, and represented the Coast Guard in the first military case directly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also served an assignment with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, litigating Coast Guard cases in federal district courts and Courts of Appeal. In his last Coast Guard assignment, Tom served as a legal advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Achieved unanimous decision in New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, upholding Commercial Division’s grant of summary judgment on basis that flood deductible contained in auto dealership’s inventory policy was unambiguous and expressly provided that there was no maximum limit on the policy’s flood deductible. Five Towns Nissan, LLC v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc., 135 A.D.3d 416 (2016).
Obtained Connecticut Supreme Court decision recognizing officially long-applied land recording principle of "first in time is first in right." Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel, et al. (February 7, 2012).
Gyrodyne Co of America v. State of New York, 89 A.D.3d 988 (2d Dept 2011) leave to appeal denied 19 N.Y.3d 804 (2012) obtained decision upholding largest condemnation award in New York, plus recovery of client's total attorney's fees.
Obtained decision by Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit upholding jury verdict in defendants' favor on all counts previously won in the federal District of Connecticut in fraud and patent action. Hoffman v. Glickman, 158 Fed. Appx. 282 (Fed Cir. 2005).
Achieved unanimous decision in Connecticut Supreme Court upholding dismissal for lack of standing of potential multimillion-dollar case against client. Connecticut State Medical Society v. Oxford Health Plans (CT), Inc., 272 Conn. 469 (2005).
Obtained decision upholding trial court injunction requiring landowner to pay to restore destroyed wetlands. Conservation Commission of Fairfield v. Red 11 LLC, 119 Conn. App. 377 (2010) cert. denied 295 Conn. 924 (2010).
Obtained first impression decision interpreting the farming exemption in state wetlands statute as not permitting the destruction of wetlands by filling and reclaiming. Red 11, LLC v. Conservation Commission of Fairfield, 117 Conn. App. 630 (2009) cert. denied 294 Conn 918 (2009).
Won decision upholding trial court's ruling that commercial landlord could not force tenant's insurer to defend suit by tenant claiming landlord caused property damage. Insurance Corp. of N.Y. v. Cohoes Realty Assocs., 50 A.D.3d 1228 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dept. 2008).
Won decision limiting sovereign immunity of state superintendent of banks in bankruptcy action involving foreign banks. In re Deposit Insurance Agency, 482 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2007).
Won decision determining for the first time that individuals have a private right of action under the state wetlands statute. Windels v. Environmental Protection Commission of Darien, 284 Conn. 268 (2007).
Obtained decision of Connecticut Supreme Court upholding statutory double damages in multimillion-dollar arbitration award for securities employment case. Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005).
Mr. Donlon's column, published quarterly, discusses actual appellate cases where attorneys' errors have affected the outcome. It is now entering its third year, with no shortage of examples from which good lawyers can learn. The most recent article includes cases where lawyers were sanctioned for appealing a case based on a knowingly false claim, the dismissal of an appeal for failing to file a brief (after two extensions of time), and a decision in which the appellate court found the controlling contract provision itself, after both sides had been arguing the wrong provision since the trial began.
The article describes the process that appellate attorneys must follow to have the ABA file an amicus curiae brief in support of their position. As the ABA is a national organization with a diverse membership, there are several layers to the process to ensure the position taken is broadly supported across that organization. As co-chair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Amicus Curiae Briefs Committee, Mr. Donlon is responsible for guiding section members through this often cumbersome process. Based on that experience, the article provides a basic "how to" summary for practitioners.
This column covers cases ranging from the fallout of far-fetched claims that an accident with a cow on the road fell under a state's health care safety provisions to a personally costly incident involving sanctions against an attorney for over $160,000.
The column, now a regular feature in this journal, reports on mistakes made by actual lawyers during appeals.
The latest column highlights in one case a lawyer who, in an unsuccessful effort to increase his own attorney's fees, argued that the trial court awarded his clients too much money, and in another case, a lawyer whose claim that the mistakes in his second "corrected" brief were excusable because he was a sole practitioner with limited resources only resulted in its rejection by the court.
This column, which will be a regular feature going forward, reports on actual cases where mistakes by appellate attorneys have resulted in bad results for the attorneys and their clients and shares examples from appellate courts across the country so that readers can learn from the mistakes of others.
The article discusses how attention to appellate issues from the earliest stages of a case, continuing through trial, can lead to better outcomes on appeal. Waiting until the trial is over to begin thinking about an appeal often leads to an adverse appellate decision. Click here to view a copy of the article.
The firm hosted a meeting of the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) Appellate Advocacy Section in the Hartford office on November 28, 2018. The meeting featured an informal discussion with Judge Nina F. Elgo of the Connecticut Appellate Court. Judge Elgo, who is a first generation Filipino-American, was the first Asian-Pacific American appointed to the Connecticut Appellate Court in 2017. Judge Elgo led a lively discussion of the issues facing the Appellate Court, particularly problems with how attorneys prepare briefs and present oral arguments. The meeting was coordinated by Appellate Team member Thomas J. Donlon. Tom currently serves as co-chair of the CBA Appellate Advocacy Section.
The ABA's Section of Litigation presented awards for the best publications of the past year at its Annual Editors Symposium, held on October 15, 2017. Business Litigation Group lawyer Thomas J. Donlon's columns, "Silly Lawyer Tricks," which appear in the quarterly Appellate Practice journal, received a special award for the "Best Article Series" of any of the Litigation Section's publications. Silly Lawyer Tricks discusses actual appellate cases in which a lawyer's error has negatively affected the outcome. In making the award, the section officer noted that Mr. Donlon's articles regularly receive the highest number of opening clicks from section members.
The Summer 2017 issue of the ABA’s Appellate Practice contains the latest "Silly Lawyer Tricks" column by Business Litigation Group lawyer Thomas J. Donlon. Mr. Donlon's column, published quarterly, discusses actual appellate cases where attorneys' errors have affected the outcome. It is now entering its third year, with no shortage of examples from which good lawyers can learn. The most recent article includes cases where lawyers were sanctioned for appealing a case based on a knowingly false claim, the dismissal of an appeal for failing to file a brief (after two extensions of time), and a decision in which the appellate court found the controlling contract provision itself, after both sides had been arguing the wrong provision since the trial began. Click here to view a copy of the article.
The ABA’s Winter 2017 Appellate Practice Journal contains two separate articles by Thomas J. Donlon. The first, “Obtaining ABA Amicus Support For Your Appeal,” describes the process that appellate attorneys must follow to have the ABA file an amicus curiae brief in support of their position. As the ABA is a national organization with a diverse membership, there are several layers to the process to ensure the position taken is broadly supported across that organization. As co-chair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Amicus Curiae Briefs Committee, Mr. Donlon is responsible for guiding section members through this often cumbersome process. Based on that experience, the article provides a basic “how to” summary for practitioners. Click here to view the article.
The second article is the latest iteration of Mr. Donlon’s regular column, “Silly Lawyer Tricks,” which reports on mistakes made by real attorneys in real appeals. The column has appeared in each issue of Appellate Practice Journal for the past two years. Click here to read the current column.
Business litigation lawyer Thomas J. Donlon of the Stamford office published his latest "Silly Lawyer Tricks" column in the Fall 2015 issue of the ABA Appellate Practice Journal. The regular column reports on actual cases where mistakes by appellate lawyers have resulted in bad results for the lawyers and their clients. The latest column highlights in one case a lawyer who, in an unsuccessful effort to increase his own attorney's fees, argued that the trial court awarded his clients too much money, and in another case, a lawyer whose claim that the mistakes in his second "corrected" brief were excusable because he was a sole practitioner with limited resources only resulted in its rejection by the court. To read about these and other bad appellate lawyers, click here to view a copy of the article.
Business litigation lawyer Thomas J. Donlon of the Stamford office published his initial column in the Summer 2015 issue of the ABA Appellate Practice Journal. The column, entitled "Silly Lawyer Tricks," reports on actual cases where mistakes by appellate attorneys have resulted in bad results for the attorneys and their clients. The column, which will be a regular feature of the journal going forward, shares examples from appellate courts across the country so that readers can learn from the mistakes of others. Click here to view the article.
Business litigation lawyers Brian E. Moran, Thomas J. Donlon, and Jona Kim obtained summary judgment of noninfringement as to two patents, excluded plaintiffs' damage study on Daubert grounds, and defeated plaintiffs' summary judgment motion seeking to preclude our client's inequitable conduct counterclaims. The Robinson+Cole team also succeeded in obtaining summary judgment on willful infringement and induced infringement, thereby significantly limiting any potential damages. Earlier in the case, the plaintiffs were forced to drop another patent following a favorable Markman claim construction ruling. The case is Helios Software LLC, et al. v. Awareness Technologies Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1259-LPS (D. Del.).
Business litigation attorney Thomas J. Donlon of the Stamford office published an article in the Winter 2015 issue of the ABA Appellate Practice Journal. Mr. Donlon presently serves as vice chair of the Appellate Practice Committee and co-chair of the ABA Amicus Briefs Committee. His article, entitled "Winning Your Appeal At Trial," discusses how attention to appellate issues from the earliest stages of a case, continuing through trial, can lead to better outcomes on appeal. Waiting until the trial is over to begin thinking about an appeal often leads to an adverse appellate decision. Click here to view a copy of the article.
Stamford business litigation lawyer Thomas J. Donlon has been appointed co-chair of the Amicus Curiae Briefs Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation. The committee reviews all requests that the Section of Litigation file amicus briefs in any litigation in federal and state courts across the country. It also coordinates the preparation of briefs after filing is authorized. Last year, the committee was responsible for overseeing more than a dozen amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court alone. Mr. Donlon previously served as co-chair of the Appellate Practice Committee. He authored an article in the Summer 2014 issue of the Appellate Practice Journal on an appellate advocacy program that the committee presented to the Section of Litigation Annual Conference last spring.
Thomas J. Donlon, Business Litigation and Appellate Team lawyer in the Stamford office, served as part of a CLE panel at the recent American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Litigation Annual Conference, held on April 11, 2014, in Scottsdale, Arizona. The program, "For the Record from Start to Finish," addressed the importance of focusing on preserving appellate issues at the trial stage. Two other experienced appellate practitioners joined in discussing the various points during trial proceedings, from preparing initial pleadings through post-trial motions, where potential appellate issues must be recognized and steps taken to protect the record. The panel addressed how trial lawyers who focus on winning a case can take advantage of appellate lawyers' expertise to ensure the case is not later lost on appeal. Click here to view Mr. Donlon with the moderator and other panelists.
Mr. Donlon presently serves as vice chair of the ABA's Appellate Practice Committee as well as a member of the Section of Litigation's Book Development Board.
Appellate Team member Thomas J. Donlon of the Stamford office has been appointed to the Book Development Board of the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation. The board's mission is to develop and publish practical books to help lawyers improve their litigation practice. In his new position, Mr. Donlon will work with other members of the board to supervise the writing and production of new titles, from concept through sale. If anyone has a great idea for a book, please give him a call.
Mr. Donlon just completed a three-year term as co-chair of the Section of Litigation's Appellate Practice Committee.
Litigation News, a publication of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation, quoted attorney Thomas Donlon of the firm’s Appellate Team in the article “Attorney Gambles Chasing Fees and Loses Big” in the Fall 2012 issue.
Members of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation may access the full article through the section’s website.
Mr. Donlon is co-chair of the American Bar Association Appellate Practice Committee.
Thomas J. Donlon, a member of the firm’s Appellate Practice Team, wrote the article “Getting Your Name In Print: Sometimes It Is Not A Good Thing,” published in the Spring 2012 issue of the American Bar Association’s appellate practice newsletter. The article reviewed the recent trend of opinions in which appellate courts have criticized attorneys by name for poor performance in either written briefs or oral arguments. Mr. Donlon is co-chair of the American Bar Association Appellate Practice Committee.
An article written by Thomas J. Donlon, a member of the firm's Appellate Team, will be used as materials in the Connecticut Judges Institute annual training program for judges in June 2011. A judge leading a session on judicial ethics requested to use Mr. Donlon's article, “Judicial Disqualification: What Next for Connecticut.” It ran in the January 2010 issue of Connecticut Lawyer.
At the August 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, attorney Thomas J. Donlon participated in a program titled “Celebrating Women on the Appellate Bench: A Mock Argument Examining Potential Gender Influences on Decision Making.” The panel of judges — all women — included Chief Justice Chase Rogers of the Connecticut Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Judge Consuelo Callahan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The hypothetical case argued dealt with a claim of excessive force by police on a pregnant woman who was tasered during an arrest on a mistaken charge of DUI. Following the mock argument, the panel engaged in a lively discussion with the audience on how the increasing number of women appellate judges affects oral argument and court deliberations. Mr. Donlon, a member of Robinson & Cole’s Appellate Team, organized the program as part of his new position as Co-Chair of the ABA’s Appellate Practice Committee.
The American Bar Associations’ (ABA) Appellate Practice Committee has appointed Thomas J. Donlon, a member of Robinson & Cole’s Appellate Group, as cochair of the committee. It is part of the ABA’s Section of Litigation and connects appellate practitioners from across the country by providing a forum to address issues specific to the practice of law in appellate courts, both federal and state. The committee sponsors national continuing legal education programs, consults and comments on changes to appellate rules, and publishes a quarterly journal. Mr. Donlon had served as cochair of the committee’s programming subcommittee since 2005.
Thomas J. Donlon of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group published an article in the May/June issue of Connecticut Lawyer. The article addresses the impact of Connecticut’s practice that allows the Supreme Court to take cases from the Appellate Court sua sponte (without a request from any party to the case). The Supreme Court often exercises this power after an appeal is fully briefed. In the article, Mr. Donlon discusses the negative effects of the Supreme Court reviewing a brief an attorney wrote for the Appellate Court and recommends that the Supreme Court only hear such cases prior to submission of briefs. Click here to see the entire article. This is Mr. Donlon’s second article on appellate issues published by the Connecticut Lawyer this year.
*Article reprinted with permission from the Connecticut Bar Association.
Thomas J. Donlon of the firm’s Appellate Team published an article in the December/January issue of Connecticut Lawyer. The article addresses the potential impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Caperton v. Massey on judicial disqualification in Connecticut. The Supreme Court held for the first time that not only ethical rules, but also the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required disqualification of judges in some circumstances. Caperton v. Massey arose in the context of large campaign contributions in a state with elected judges but invoked broad due process principles to reach its result. While Connecticut has a system of appointed judges rather than elected judges, Mr. Donlon’s article explores the likely increase in challenges to judges based on due process claims. Click here to see the entire article.
Business Litigation Counsel Thomas J. Donlon recently received an award as Outstanding Sub-Committee Chair at the recent ABA Section of Litigation Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. Mr. Donlon was honored for his work in the past year as Chair of the Programming Sub-Committee of the Appellate Advocacy Committee.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.