Court Opinion

ID: 9760600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:03:17.350778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:14.121529
License: Public Domain

MCDONALD, J.,
concurring. I concur in the result of the majority opinion.
There was no genuine issue before the trial court that on March 15,2000, the defendant attorney, Osvaldo Gonzalez, negotiated a plea bargain on behalf of the plaintiff, William Pagan, that provided that the plaintiff could not argue for a lesser sentence in the underlying criminal matter. At that time, Gonzalez, who was acting pro hac vice, was accompanied by the plaintiffs Connecticut attorney. At sentencing on July 12,2000, Gonzalez was present without the Connecticut attorney, and the court sentenced the plaintiff exactly in accordance with the plea bargain.
I would conclude that the plaintiff was required to establish through expert testimony how he suffered any damage from the failure of Connecticut counsel to be *142present at sentencing, that is, evidence of proximate causation.