CT Family Court Attorney Edward Nusbaum Fights to Keep File and Work Secret

By Dick LaFontaine

Family Court attorney Edward Nusbaum of Westport, Connecticut, has some curious ideas about the good practice of law, according to recently filed court documents.

Can Connecticut Attorney Edward Nusbaum get disbarred for unethical conduct?

Could Connecticut Attorney Edward Nusbaum be in trouble?

Dangerous Retainer Agreement?

Nusbaum has clients sign what may be an illegal and unethical retainer agreement.

He charges $750 per hour for work he cannot or will not document.

According to an examination of claims made against him, when clients ask Nusbaum to show what work he did for his billings, he refuses to provide discovery.

A special clause in his retainer agreement, he says, prevents them from suing him in court. They have to settle the dispute in arbitration.

And, the arbitrators must be family court attorneys who practice in the same county Nusbaum practices family law – Fairfield County.

A former Nusbaum client fights for her file

A former client, Karen Riordan, claims Nusbaum violated the Rules of Professional Conduct governing Connecticut Lawyers.

Riordan claims the public needs to be protected from attorneys like Nusbaum.

Riordan writes in a filing: “Attorney discipline does not punish the attorney, but rather safeguards the administration of justice and protects the public from the misconduct or unfitness of those who are members of the legal profession.”

Karen Riordan alleges her former lawyer, Edward Nusbaum of Westport, Connecticut, is an "Attorney-Predator" in recently-filed court documents.

Karen Riordan alleges her former lawyer, Edward Nusbaum of Westport, Connecticut, is an “Attorney-Predator.”

Misconduct Alleged

The dispute between Nusbaum and Riordan arises from his legal representation in Riordan’s divorce case. Riordan paid Nusbaumin about $100,000, the bulk of it was deposited in escrow for work he was to do.

She was shocked when Nusbaum told her he had used up the entire retainer. He had not gone to court once or filed a single court motion.

She said she wanted her money back.

Nusbaum still had $64,000 of Riordan’s money in his escrow account. He wanted her to approve of releasing that to him.

Riordan wanted an accounting – what did he do for $100,000? She refused to sign a release.

Nusbaum sued Riordan to transfer the money from his escrow account to his own bank account.

Nusbaum has a provision in his retainer agreements that says disputes do not go to court, but to arbitration. And arbitrators must be fellow family law attorneys in the same county as Nusbaum – Fairfield County.

There are a limited number of attorneys practicing family law in Fairfield County, and for the most part, they know each other.

Riordan claims Nusbaum’s retainer contract is “patently unethical, predatory, and illegal.”

Her biggest gripes are that the retainer has an arbitration clause that does not permit discovery, and he will not give her a copy of her own file.

Catch 22

Nusbaum billed Riordan almost $100,000 – for emails and phone calls. He will provide no proof that he made the calls or sent emails.

Some phone calls on his bills were made to people who had no connection to the case. Other phone calls seem padded as to time.

Several phone calls were made to others to find out how much money Riordan had – seeking to learn about her assets and family wealth.

There was a raft of calls, which no one can figure out why he made them. And emails he billed her for writing, which she has never seen and may have never been sent.

Even if they were sent, the purpose of the emails is unclear.  She has only his good word for the time he spent composing them and that they had a purpose.

Then, there are all the phone calls to the opposing attorney and the Guardian ad Litem.

He must have had a lot to say at $750 per hour to the other attorney [billing her client at $650 per hour] and the GAL [billing both parties at $450 per hour].

All three of them know each other and have multiple cases together. It would surprise no one to learn that Nusbaum billed more than one client for the same phone call.

But, we cannot know for certain. His retainer says “no discovery.” Riordan cannot see his phone records, or his emails made on her behalf.

If his retainer is legal, she can’t sue, and can’t get discovery. She can’t even get her file.

According to Nusbaum, all she can do is go to arbitration, where a Fairfield County family law attorney will hear the matter – without evidence.

Nusbaum told Frank Report, “let her take me to court. I will win and get all the money and, on top of that, get lawyer costs from her. She will end up owing me more money than the money I have in escrow.”

When asked how he could be so sure he would win, Nusbaum said, “I’ve never lost one yet.”

The Fairfield County Courthouse in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The Fairfield County Courthouse in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The case will be hard to prove without discovery and without her file.

How can Riodan prove he did not make $100,000 worth of calls and emails over a couple of months? Nusbaum never went to court. He did file a court document once.

Nusbaum filed a court document to ensure he was paid directly from the proceeds of the forced sale of Riodan’s house.  He spent a lot of time on the phone with the opposing attorney, the GAL, the real estate agent, and others to arrange that Riordan paid him for more billings.

Nusbaum has a solid legal team around him.  He is represented by attorney Alexander Trembicki, of the law firm of Lynch, Trembicki & Boynton.  Nusbaum also relies on attorney Harold W. Haldeman, co-author of, “A History of the First One Hundred Years of the Connecticut Bar Association,” published in the Connecticut Bar Journal.

Attorney Alexander Trembicki of the Lynch, Trembicki & Boynton law firm, represents Attorney Edward Nusbaum.

Attorney Alexander Trembicki of the Westport, Connecticut, Lynch, Trembicki & Boynton law firm represents Attorney Edward Nusbaum.

“Attorney Nusbaum’s engagement letter shows intent and a plan to veil his attorney misconduct, legal malpractice, and fraudulent and tortuous conduct in ‘mandatory’ arbitration proceedings. It is well established that contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable,” Riordan wrote in recent court papers filed in a Stamford, Connecticut court.

Attorney Nusbaum believes his contract protects him.

The lawyer previously told Frank Report, “If the client doesn’t want to sign it, I won’t represent her.”

About the author

Dick LaFontaine

Dick LaFontaine chases gripping, thorny, and precarious stories around the world as a correspondent for the Frank Report.

85 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Nusbaum, Hurwitz, Adelman, Grossman, Dembo, Knopf, LaLiberte, Munro, Wetstone, Dranginis, Truglia, Horowitz, Gruen, Solomon, Smith, Caverly, Cousineau, Schofield, Gersten, Bozek, Morra, Raikh-Kelly, Aarrons, Libbin, Kulak, Midler, Herman, Stewart, Reich, Ficcarro, all do not [redacted] ‘family’ court.

  • Attention Connecticut. STOP filing through the Connecticut grievance committee! Go straight to the District Court in New Haven or the superior court to file against Attorneys and gals. The grievance committee is doing nothing to protect the public. If you go to the grievance committee you can not go to the courts. If everyone stops using the grievance committee it’s likely to loose it’s funding. STOP using the Connecticut grievance committee. It’s not getting anyone any where!

    • Agreed! I didn’t know there was any other option. Do you mean to file lawsuit against them, or file with the courts for unethical conduct?

  • Ed Nusbaum’s dishonest contract only works because dishonest judges enforce it … for a price of course.

  • Nusbaum is a disgrace. He provides nothing to his clients, double dips on calls, and is committing fraud on billing, while exuding arrogance for circumventing law, and hiding behind unethical documents, and refusing to allow discovery. This practice is definitely unethical, and should be illegal under the “the Rules of Professional Conduct governing Connecticut Lawyers”…if such rules are actually enforced (if not, Connecticut law is a joke). For this, Nusbaum should be disbarred and all funding returned to Riordan. A precedence needs to be set. Unethical and illegal behavior needs to be stopped in the true intent of the Rules. Contractors the work for any Government or state entity, must properly document all work and billings, or face criminal charges of fraud, and banishment from further work. Why should Nusbaum, who is governed by The Connecticut Bar, be exempt. He shouldn’t. He is committing fraud. Let him pay and be disbarred. I’m sure, in his arrogance, he has the money…and there are 49 other states to practice in.

    • “A precedence needs to be set. Unethical and illegal behavior needs to be stopped in the true intent of the Rules. Contractors the work for any Government or state entity, must properly document all work and billings, or face criminal charges of fraud, and banishment from further work.”

      Connecticut needs judges who think that way and state legislators with morals to set it in stone.

  • BEWARE: You’ll spend at least $200,000 on a no-fault divorce with Ed Nusbaum. And you will likely get nothing in your favor, nor motions filed. In the case of Annette Hunter, her divorce cost her over $255,000.

    • Connecticut family court is a parasitic enterprise designed and operated by elitists with ant-Christian views, the sole purpose of fees is to enrich the foot soldiers of the [redacted] ideology. Satan wears a black robe.

  • Edward Nusbaum was David Friezo’s lawyer in 1998.

    Mr. Friezo gave his wife a draft of a prenuptial agreement without financial disclosures.

    Then, Mr. Friezo’s sister’s law partner Eamonn F. Foley told the wife to sign an agreement that “was dense legalese, “twenty one pages of run-on sentences” as (judge) Winslow put it. “She did not know that she was being set up,” the judge wrote. …”

    Here’s part of the article in the Connecticut Law Tribune:

    “… Factory Worker Turned Wife Breaks Divorce ‘Glass Ceiling’

    September 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM
    By Thomas B. Scheffey | Updated on September 13, 2004

    At 16, London-born Victoria Jane Wood finished high school and went to work as a machine operator in a paper factory. Now, 16 years later, she has just won $10.5 million in lump sum payments and $10,000 a month in alimony after a five-year marriage.

    Stamford Superior Court Judge Heidi Winslow, in an Aug. 27 decision, is testing the very meaning of the term “equitable distribution,” contending it can be a 50-50 split of all income during marriage. She ruled in the case of Victoria W. Friezo v. David Friezo that both parties contributed equally to the breakdown of the marriage, and that both “performed the role that each contracted to perform” when they wed. “If each party fulfilled his or her part of the bargain, the contribution of each party should be worth one-half of the paid compensation received during the marriage,” even if nothing was paid for the wife’s services, Winslow wrote.

    David Friezo’s lawyer, Edward Nusbaum of Westport’s Nusbaum & Parrino, protested during Aug. 4 closing arguments that Winslow’s logic would make Connecticut a community property state. He cited the case of Wendt v. Wendt, in which Lorna Wendt, wife of top General Electric executive Gary Wendt, sought half of his $100 million in earnings during the marriage, but got $20 million.

    That was a different judge, and the Wendt decision might have been “a travesty,” Winslow told Nusbaum on the last day of an eight-day trial.

    In a dramatic moment, Winslow asked Victoria Friezo’s lawyer, Gary I. Cohen of Greenwich, to explain his client’s request. Cohen replied that, if David Friezo’s assets had increased by $40 million during the marriage, “a $7.5 million dollar payout over time would give her the [means to support] herself and [their] child appropriately.”

    “You misunderstand my question, Mr. Cohen,” the judge said. If the assets are close to $40 million, “why isn’t she seeking $20 million instead of seven and a half?” she asked.

    Cohen quickly pointed out his figure was merely “precatory” and did not in any way prevent the court from awarding more.

    Three weeks later, Winslow’s 34-page decision prompted David Friezo and Nusbaum to secure the appellate services of Wesley W. Horton, of Hartford’s Horton, Shields & Knox.

    FAILED BY COUNSEL?

    Victoria Wood met her future husband working as a trader’s assistant in England, when she earned �13,000 a year. He was a bond trader at the time. Two months later, she moved into his apartment. In 1997, she came to Westport to oversee renovations of a house Friezo purchased, and he flew back from London for a few days every two weeks.

    By 1998, she got a warning that her tourist visa was about to expire. David proposed in August 1998, which would solve her legal problems if they married before late November 1998. He insisted on a prenuptial agreement.

    On Nov. 5, 1998, David Friezo gave Victoria a draft of the prenuptial agreement without financial disclosures, and on Nov. 10, took her to his sister’s New York City law firm. The sister, attorney Kristin Friezo, introduced Victoria to a law partner, Eamonn F. Foley, who insisted Victoria sign a conflict of interest waiver. Foley, according to the divorce decision, promised to “look into” items where Victoria had questions, but only met with her for a half hour that day. Foley did not attend the signing at Rosen & Reade in Manhattan, where Victoria reviewed the document for 20 minutes in a room by herself.

    The agreement was dense legalese, “twenty one pages of run-on sentences” as Winslow put it. “She did not know that she was being set up,” the judge wrote. …”

    https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/almID/900005414739/

  • There is CT Supreme Court case law which states that lawyers who practice ‘craft of plunder’ extinguish there cause to be admitted to the bar, lack purpose to be a member of the honorable profession, serve no purpose to the court. Nusbaum meets such definition, requiring disbarment under case law.
    See the ruling here: https://cite.case.law/conn/60/11/#p17

    It is hardly possible to characterize such conduct by an attorney-at-law in measured terms. That it was a gross violation of the attorney’s oath is only a moderate statement. That it manifested a low condition of moral sensibility is true, and that it showed the appellant to be utterly wanting in the qualities which would entitle him to public confidence is also true.

    It is not enough for an attorney that he be honest. He must be that, and more. He must be believed to be honest. It is absolutely essential to the usefulness of an attorney that he be entitled to the confidence of the community wherein he practises. If he so conducts in his profession that he does not deserve that confidence, he is no longer an aid to the court nor a safe guide to his clients. A lawyer needs, indeed, to be learned. It would be well if he could be learned in all the learning of the schools. There is nothing to which the wit of man has been turned that may not become the subject of his inquiries. Then, of course, he must be specially skilled in the books and the rules of his own profession. And he must have prudence, and tact to use his learning, and foresight, and industry, and courage. But all these may exist in a moderate degree and yet he may be a creditable and useful member of the profession, so long as the practice is to him a clean and honest function. But *18possessing all these great faculties, if once the practice becomes to him a mere “ brawl for hire,” or a system of legalized plunder where craft and not conscience is the rule, and where falsehood and not truth is the means by which to gain his ends, then he has forfeited all right to be an officer in anjr court of justice or to be numbered among the members of an honorable profession.

  • Someone needs to arrest Nusbaum and all his friends.

    A judge needs to tell them all to give all the money back they stole.

    Whatever’s left should go to identify the monsters who created the for-profit purposely adversarial “family courts” to be:

    FOR PROFIT + PURPOSELY ADVERSARIAL + MANDATORY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW

    The latest nightmare Nusbaum and his “Connecticut family court” friends created:

    “… AAN-FA21-6045679-S – DEWITT, EWEN ANTHONY v. MINOGUE, JULIE LYNN

    # Date Time Event Description Status

    1 04/26/2023 10:00AM Hearing Proceeding …”

    https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=AANFA216045679S

    • Another family court case where, after years of raising their children, one parent is deemed a monster… a criminal… and in need of supervised visitation.
      There is NO finding of abuse or unfitness by the state of CT.
      DCF is NOT involved and has NOT removed children from care.

      These are the attorneys and judges of CT family court who weaponize court appointments to destroy parent-child bonds.
      They steal children and marital funds and force agreements which require the court to be involved indefinitely.

      This is a criminal enterprise. No shock it’s Judge Tindall.
      Same Playbook.

      And no news channels in CT will cover these stories of blatant child abuse at the discretion of the court.

      • Family court judges work to maximize lawyer feed, can’t make money without character assassination, fight over the kids, and kickbacks to the judge.

      • This is exactly what happened in my case. Add judge Albis, the lawyers at the firm of Gould Larson et al, and lawyer/GAL Victoria Lanier.

    • MINOGUE, JULIE LYNN told the judge of the Connecticut family court, “I don’t feel like I should be subjected to this abuse … I am scared he’s going to kill me.” Remember: It was important for the mother to use all caps and proper placement of first, middle and last name when filing motions to the Connecticut Family Court. All pro se parents must use upper case letters when required. All parents must know the law, proper procedures and officially designated spacing on all pages submitted to the court clerk’s office (see proper rules and procedures in the Connecticut practice book). All parents must read all documents and contracts thoroughly before signing. Whatever actually happens in the cases doesn’t matter as much.

      In mainstream news for the next week or two, heart-wrenching symptoms of massive corruption and immorality in Connecticut family courts will be easy to see. Drama and tears will sell the news. Advocates will say, “Something must be done.” as well-dressed bureaucrats nod in agreement.

      The Hartford Courant and New Haven Register won’t bother to investigate or report about the corruption in Connecticut’s family court system. Publishers, editors and reporters at both outlets know the worst players in the system aren’t in the system to make it work for the people of Connecticut.

      No news outlets will bother to report exactly how Connecticut family courts failed a family so miserably again — with all the private, state and federal funding that keeps the cases and the money flowing, year after year.

  • Nusbaum, Trembicki and Danial Portanova strike again!

    LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD NUSBAUM P.C. v. BRANDT, SABINA–(their target had plenty of money– which is why a no-fault divorce took three years in CT family court – See BRANDT, SABINA N. v. KELLEY, KEVIN W. FST-FA-19-6042047-S)

    Brandt, refused the scam of arbitration, and the gruesome twosome eased on down the road to the all too familiar, Daniel Portanova.

    And–as is often the case with this treacherous trio, old faithful Judge Taggart came in to rule in favor of Tubby and Tiny.
    The final order is sealed (written in black, not blue) per agreement that findings of arbitration be secreted from public view. Such a racket.

    Trembicki’s motions are identical in all his cases.
    Same playbook by Fairfield County Criminal Family Law Attorneys

    • No discovery for the arbitration?
      Findings of arbitration are “secreted from public view”?

      If Nusbaum, Trembicki and/or Portanova are members of a private club, is that a secret too?

  • Trembicki, Nusbaum, and Portanova won’t disclose how many “cases” they’ve had together or how many times they’ve used each other as “arbitrators.”

    Where are the rules for the secreted Fairfield County Family Court Lawyers Arbitration Committee?

    Imagine that?

    They can all pick each other and then pick the pockets clean of a parent who wanted a divorce and lost their home, life savings and children.

    Fairfield County is the Gold Coast for a reason.

    These family law attorneys are the bottom of the barrel but no brains needed when you run a racket.

    The proof is in Nusbaum’s contract.

    He should be disbarred. Records of his history with Trembicki and Portanova should be exposed.

  • Nusbaum and Trembicki go after another innocent client. Motion to compel to unethical arbitration!

    BRANDT SABINA LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD NUSBAUM,PC v. BRANDT,SABINA This case is a paperless file FST-CV-21-5024202-S

  • Eddie the Eel Nusbaum– Selling out clients since 2003! This slippery sleeze has been signing agreements without informed consent of his clients and against their expressed position since 2003.

    In the case of Deleo v Nusbaum, Eddie the Eel sold a father down the river, but made plenty of money in doing so. The elusive and slippery 74 year old Nusbaum has slithered his way through family court fraudulently billing and misrepresenting his clients for decades– while destroying parental bonds.

    In the case of Deleo, Nusbaum signed an agreement for supervised visitation for this client to see his children.
    There was no finding of unfitness. There was no finding of abuse. No finding by DCF. No finding at all.

    There also was no informed consent by his client. Eddie just presented it that way, signed a document without his client knowing, and made it a court order. Sound familiar? This client is one of many who Eddie has made this play on.

    The Nefarious Nusbaum works in collusion with other family court attorneys and the GAL– nothing new. Same play on so many innocent parents to bleed them of their money, leave them powerless, and laugh all the way to the bank with their life savings.

    They drag out litigation so by the time a parent regains their bearings, it’s often too late. The deck (meaning the court actors) are aligned and well practiced. They know the playbook and elusive Eddie hides behind his Fairfield County Family Court Law cronies as he drives his flashy Porsche around Weston and Westport– Where buddy Nancy Alrich’s son is the senator! How perfect for this 74 year old sleezebag.

    Deleo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588 (2003)
    May 20, 2003 · Connecticut Supreme Court · SC 16750

    • The state politicians don’t want to fix it. The judges don’t want to fix it. The lawyers don’t want to fix it. It’s been a mess for years. The federal government won’t fix it. It’s going to take the residents. Elected judges. Clearing benches. Elected grievance panels. Getting the democrats out of office.

      • Patrick Carroll III is the court administrator. During one public hearing, I sat a few rows away from him as he sat in the audience with his secretary. He mocked Minnie Gonzalez and expected his secretary to mock Representative Gonzalez, too.

        Representative Gonzalez was one of three state legislators who had the courage to actively speak out against the corruption around 2014 when parents found out about “Connecticut AFCC Inc.”. The cabal went after Representative Gonzalez because she was so outspoken.

        The FBI started a “public corruption” task force in 2014 and 2015. No AFCC, Inc. member was ever arrested for racketeering. Why not?

        At another public hearing around that time, Patrick Carroll III stood at the door, reading the list of speakers who were waiting to testify at the public hearing about the corruption. Many witnesses felt intimidated.

        Which individuals allowed Patrick Carroll III to let criminals like Nusbaum and Portanova steal millions of dollars this year?

        Are they the same deceitful individuals at the top who disbarred Attorney Nicholas Cunha after Attorney Cunha tried to expose the corruption?

        Norm Pattis is controlled opposition in many of these major cases, guiding the cases to eventually have disastrous national policy implications. All of this is a big joke to whatever cabal is in control of the state. They deceive the taxpayers and then laugh at everyone who’s been exploited and deceived.

        They’re not Jews. Real Jews worship God.

        Is the cabal in control of Connecticut family courts are Freemasons who protect each other from prosecution? If so, those Freemasons and their accomplices are literally “The Synagogue of Satan”.

        What other group could be so organized, so influential and so evil?

        • Do tell on how the great pony tail of Connecticut is involved? Gonzalez was heading in the right direction until she was misguided by the Connecticut family court reform coocoo pants. The so called parental alienation expert. Watch out cool aid being served. She looking to cash in on the industry. One minute she is disabled. The next she is running supervised visits, she is a gal. It’s a hot mess. Wake up Connecticut.

        • Funny how all the major players in CT family court system are [redacted] … if they luv god, they have a strange way of showing it … raping childhoods, plundering family bank, inflicting emotional harm… btw, ‘no-fault’ divorce is a [redacted] communist invention.

      • The ruling masters of Connecticut will not allow change, it is designed and operated for an ideological purpose with a financial goal.

        • Most parents signing lawyer’s contracts in family courts naturally assume all lawyers follow state and federal laws. When Ms. Riordan signed Mr. Nusbaum’s contract, she probably didn’t interpret any paragraph this way:

          “Fair warning: All lawyers and paralegals in the Nusbaum law firm don’t need to act according to state and federal laws. We don’t need to follow common standards of practice. Attorney Nusbaum will do as he pleases in your case and charge you $750 an hour. If you don’t like what he does to you and your children, you’ll be allowed to complain to an arbitrator, but your complaints shall go no further than that. You or a representative won’t be allowed to ask Mr. Nusbaum or this law firm any questions about any wrongdoing and no one will be allowed to present any evidence to anyone to prove our wrongdoing.”

          Until the Nusbaum case is resolved, fair use warnings must be added to the top of the Connecticut judicial website’s main page. The warning must be highlighted so no one can miss it.

          Large signs must be placed at the entrance to all courthouses, in the lobbies of the courthouses, in the elevators and in every hallway to warn parents of the hidden rules and procedures allowed in family court cases. The public has no idea what’s happening.

        • That looks like the mission statement of ESP/NXIVM followers: To “ethically control as much of the money, wealth and resources of the world as possible within my success plan.” 💰 💰 💰

    • Everyone in positions of power within the state of CT know what is going on. Racketeering was proven already– with the sham of a “task force” where the fox guarded the hen house. GAL Sue Cousineau and court appointed psychologist/reunification therapist/child abuse were on the head of the committee– Sue was the chair and made sure to deny access as expected.

      Currently, Sue Cousineau is busy stealing children from mothers; breaking bonds of love and accusing protective mothers of the debunked parental alienation. The only place it exists is in CT courts– it’s a sham.

      And the tactics of the court are cult-like. They isolate children and deny them access to mothers and extended families. Suddenly mothers can have no contact or they can talk with a supervisor on zoom.

      Look at the AFCC– it was a business RUN THROUGH CT FAMILY COURTS!! The Judges– Adelman, Munroe, Wetstone– were all nailed for racketeering– so was Robert Horwitz, Bruce Freedman, Linda Smith– but nothing was done. It was all buried.

  • See Homonnay v. Nusbaum– a CT no-fault divorce state and Nusbaum charges $397,831.28 in legal fees! Homonnay rightly claimed, Nusbaum’s fees are, “excessive, unconscionable, and contrary to public policy.”

    Nusbaum is a scoundrel.

    • CT Family Court is like a Roach Motel– “You can get in but you can’t get out.”– Not until they’ve taken every penny, left you traumatized, abused and discredited your children, and sold your home.

  • Why is there a special group of arbitrators appointed? And they must be from Fairfield county and practice only family law?? I’m sure Nusbaum cleans house this way all the time.

    Talk about a racket!

    Do you know how many times Nusbaum has forced clients to his Fairfield country family law arbitration racket?

    Guaranteed all evidence of this is sealed. They’re all in on it together as well as the coverup.

    How about Trembicki? Hes part of the club as well. A judge needs to toss his “agreement”. Otherwise they endorse abuse of practice.

    • They probably have to have offices in Fairfield county so that the lawyers and clients aren’t forced ro waste time and money traveling all over tarnation for arbitration.

      I mean, just think if there was no limit on location…clients and lawyers could choose an arbitrator in Timbuktu just to make things hard for the other party.

      • How about that if we make it so that the arbitrator has to have offices in Nusbaum’s own offices – like one of his partners – then nobody has to travel at all.

      • There is already the American Arbitration Association to resolve disputes. But it’s a non-profit and has rules and standards, so they don’t do much good to crooks like Nusbaum and Trembicki.

        In the Fairfield County Family Lawyers cabal of arbitration, each of the arbitrators has a fee of likely $450/hour. So on top of your legal bills, you can be directed to pay a panel of THREE attorneys– all who will not rule against their cronies– to settle a dispute.

        And why the secrecy? Why can’t the outcome be posted on the court docket since the same unethical agreement dockets everything else. Funny, there is a clause that the outcome of arbitration must be sealed–and therefore written in black on the docket.

        Just another way to cover up Connecticut racketeering.

  • Connecticut family courts shameless family law system. Check into why Paul McConnell trys to get all his cases transferred to Judge Robert Nastri’s court house. Why the judges are still giving no choice of Gals. Why the same gals continue to be top picks for father’s rights attorneys. Folks the poor baby brutally murdered was the subject of custody cases.

    • Exactly. Same high priced GALs are in demand. The targeted parent is victimized and has no clue what’s happening until it’s too late.

      Even if you do realize it, you’re up against a criminal enterprise where money is all that matters. They’ll influence the police, dcf and the schools. However well-intended these employees may be they fold under the “attorney gal” who makes her agenda clear and uses a corrupt custody evaluator or court appointed abusive therapists to back her up.

      All due diligence ends. Hospital workers stop in their tracks. Suddenly the kids and targeted parent are liars. The court records are all choreographed lies designed to bury the targeted parent.

      • Absolutely spot on!!!! I have out lined my entire case on how they do this. No real legal help from attorneys for the targeted person. Attorneys are afraid of the system with good reason. clients have to get rid of their lawyer to speak to a judge and get real information on the record You have to go to court and fight for yourself. Connecticut family court system is rigged and failing the children!!!!!

  • Infliction of emotional distress… just another day in the life of predator Edward Nusbaum:

    IV. CONCLUSION- Welsh v Nusbaum

    “For all these reasons the motion to strike the First Count (breach of lease), the Third Count (retaliatory action), the Fourth Count (negligence per se), the Seventh Count (abatement of rent), the Eighth Count (intentional infliction of emotional distress) is granted; the motion to strike the Second Count (constructive eviction), the Sixth Count (private nuisance) and the Ninth Count (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is denied.“

  • What chance does any mere mortal have when people like Nusbaum can commit highway robbery with no fear of consequences? Attorneys are supposed to represent their clients’ best interests. Seems like Nusbaum is very good at protecting his own best interests.

  • He was my attorney. Nusbaum signed an agreement without my informed consent and against my position. He was working to support my wife’s attorney.

    He signed that I agreed to supervised visitation- as if I were a criminal. He betrays his clients and destroys parents relationship with their kids. He’s a bullshit artist.

    Tried to take him to court and was told I waited too long. He got away with all of it. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was taken from me- and his actions damaged my position and destroyed my family.

    Do not use this deviant.

    • If you flip the genders of the parties, this is exactly what Riordan claims happened in her case. Guaranty she wrote this comment.
      I’d feel bad for Riordan but she’s as vindictive as Nusbaum. He’s definitely scum, but so is she and he’s smarter because he makes money. She just goes after people and ruins their reputations. Look at how many people she has slammed all over the internet. What goes around comes around Karen. I’m sure Frank won’t print this comment.

        • I truely hope so. Connecticut is a disgrace. This attorney is one of many. Hundreds of women in Connecticut praying for Karen and every other person they are doing this to. Karen hired a lawyer who she thought would fight for her rights. Little did she know the continued discrimination against women/ mother’s going on in Connecticut. Follow the funding. Follow the discrimination against women in the state who raise any issues with custody. Yes their are father’s who are victims , but women are absolutely being discriminated against. Check out the state police Facebook post on domestic violence month. Men first woman second. Check out Ccadv post men first woman second. No woman wants to go to the ccadv full of father’s rights groups. Woman in desperate need of help. Can’t get it because they are afraid of the people running it. GALs forced on cases. Forcing surtin psychologist. Running off any mental health professionals who don’t push alienation. Case after case. Absolutely nothing being done. Just ask DV advocate and lawyers. Apparently they appear to be all pissed about Jennifer’s law and women are being brutally punished. Look at the increase in murders in just the last few weeks. The system is broken and failing. It’s just making money for the legal system

      • Sorry to disappoint you Christopher.

        David DeLeo v. Nusbaum– identical actions taken without informed consent.

    • Oh dear. Why would you spend $750 per hour on a family law lawyer only to NOT take their advice??? I’m sure he said you agreed to supervised visitation because he knows that is the path to getting you custody of your kids.

      I want to know who the hell in CT is responsible for spreading the misinformation that agreeing to supervised visitation means admitting you are a criminal. That is 100% incorrect. And it’s so tragic that beleaguered parents believe it and foolishly demolish their own chances of having any custody. Sad.

      • Normally that might be the case. However, in cases of corruption, the “supervised visitation” is determined by the GAL. There is no choice. In addition, the terms of the “agreement” are nothing you can possibly imagine.

        They do not allow the visitation to be videotaped or recorded in any way. The parent cannot have a witness present. AND the court-appointed “supervisor” completes a report that ONLY the GAL and the Judge can see.
        Does this sound reasonable to you? It’s not. It’s not like the supervised visitation one would receive if DCF found a parent unfit.

        In this case there is no finding of unfitness but to be coerced into signing on with a court appointed supervisor– with a retainer of $5000- $7500 — is outrageous. And when your money runs out, the supervised visits run out.

        It is a money making scheme and a way to continue to abuse innocent children and parents.

        Lisa Kerin was the supervisor in one case. She charged a retainer of $5,000 and insisted on driving the mother’s vehicle! Where’s the responsibility here? Liability? And the visits were moved from the child’s home to her sterile office. This is best interest of child. It’s Lisa Kerin and the GAL’s best interest. In my case I had to pay $5,000 retainer for Lisa Kerin and Janice LaLiberte was my GAL! Both are corrupt.

        And I complied with everything and they still took my child. It’s a lose-lose when you are in the criminal cabal.

        • There is no legal definition of ‘supervised visitation’ for children not in custody of DCF, just another scam by the judges of Connecticut, whose pals are the unlicensed providers, more parasitic beasties draining families, harming children, such a perfect racket, some people even believe it is law!!

          • So wait, you mean everyone then has to turn to the definition in the dictionary to understand what “supervised visitation” means??? The horror!

      • Maybe you’re missing the fact that Nusbaum DOES NOT INFORM his clients NOR GET CONSENT prior to signing agreements in their name.

        That is the issue here. Nusbaum has a history of such conduct.

  • “If his retainer is legal, she can’t sue, and can’t get discovery. She can’t even get her file.”

    And if his retainer is indeed legal, it is obvious why he is in demand as a lawyer and clients are happy to pay him $750 an hour. If I were a lawyer, I would be getting out my pen and adding Nusbaum’s clauses to my own retainer. Which makes me wonder if this is actually standard in attorney’s retainers?

    I pray that Karen is writing her own filings and not letting the Family Court AntiSemite use her as a ventriloquist’s dummy again. He played a major role in destroying her custody case and getting her lawyer disbarred, and it was crystal clear from the verbiage used that he wrote the majority of her motions in that case.

    • Based on some quick research, it looks like Riordan doesn’t have a leg to stand on and should give up this futile fight, saving herself time, stress, and money.

      Mandatory arbitration clauses are super common, totally enforceable, and have solid legal standing. So is the ability of the party who writes the agreement to limit the choice of arbitrators, if they provide any choice at all. AND it’s perfectly legit for them to add in “Oh, by the way, no discovery, either.” Them’s the breaks in the U.S.A. today.

      It sucks for the consumer, but it’s a widespread practice in just about every employment contract, cell phone contract, etc.

      Karen, don’t sink yourself even deeper into your alleged poverty and destitution with yet another ill-advised and self-destructive “fight.” You def won’t win this one.

      • Unwinable fights are Karen’s specialty. Cuts off her nose to spite her face on the daily and she’ll spend months pursuing “justice” because she doesn’t work, hasn’t in 20 years.

          • That’s not true. Mother could have seen the kids, she refused supervision. For years. Who does that? A mother who puts her ego ahead of her kids. Frank holds Karen completely blame free. Something suspicious about that.

        • With attorneys like Nusbaum who betrays his own clients on a regular basis, you are accurate. There is no winning.

          Your hostility seems personal.
          This is about an unethical contract. Chill out big boy.

          • The sad reality (for consumers, clients, employees, etc) is this type of seemingly unethical contract is completely legal and totally standard and has become more and more commonplace.

            I think Nusbaum puts this in his retainer, whereas some other lawyers don’t, simply because he can — his services are in high enough demand that he can afford to lose potential clients who balk at the mandatory arbitration/no discovery clause. You can only assume that the clients who agree to it are willing to take the risk that they’ll be out the money if they’re unhappy, rightly or not, with his work.

            Karen will never win this fight. What judge, nevermind arbitrator, would say, “What’s that? You didn’t read the contract you signed? Nusbaum, give this client her money back! She didn’t read the parts where you specifically wrote “mandatory arbitration/my choice of arbitrators/no discovery,” therefore, your contact is unenforceable! Even worse, now she has read it, and she thinks it’s not fair! Pay her back everything! (Not gonna happen).

            Major corporations use those exact same clauses, and right or wrong, it keeps them from getting sued and from even having to hand over discovery. I haven’t read the whole retainer document, but from what’s been shared here, I’d say Nusbaums retainer is totally legal. Sucks for the client, but legal.

          • What kind of lawyer doesn’t want discovery?

            What kind of judge would force Ms. Riordan to submit to arbitration without discovery and without her file?

            In Connecticut’s REVISED UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT:

            “… Sec. 52-407dd. Effect of agreement to arbitrate; nonwaivable provisions …

            (b) Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not …

            (3) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 52-407ll to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator …”

            👉 A party to the agreement may not agree to unreasonably restrict the right to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator. 👈

      • Nusbaum charged clients $750 an hour for phone calls and emails, took $63,732 from taxpayers for “Paycheck Protection” and you think no discovery should be allowed?

        “Law Offices Of Edward Nusbaum PC in Westport, CT received a Paycheck Protection Loan of $63,732 through TD Bank, National Association, which was approved in May, 2020.

        This loan’s status is reported by the SBA as “Paid in Full”, which includes both loans repaid and those fully forgiven from repayment under PPP guidelines. The loan’s status was last updated by the SBA in July, 2021.

        The size of company’s PPP loan indicates that the number of employees on payroll during the eligibility calculation period (typically 2019) was higher than the 3 jobs reported as retained on the PPP application3. This could be caused by a reduction in employment since 2019, due to Coronavirus or other factors.
        The minimum number of employees this company must have had in 2019 to qualify for the loan range received is 3. This estimation is accurate if all employees were paid at or over the $100k PPP salary eligibility cap.”

        https://www.federalpay.org/paycheck-protection-program/law-offices-of-edward-nusbaum-pc-westport-ct

        • All the “little guys” aka consumers, employees, and so on, of course think discovery SHOULD be allowed. But the reality is if you sign a contract that clearly states disputes are handled via arbitration, in X county, and with no discovery, you are stuck, aka can’t sue and it will also be nigh impossible to prove your case in arbitration, sans discovery.

          These clauses are legally binding and enforceable. It sucks for us, but it underscores the need to read and understand any contracts you sign. Yes, the reality is a lot of time you are under pressure to sign despite that verbiage, such as when you need a job ASAP or a good lawyer STAT. But that doesn’t change the harsh reality that you have signed away your right to sue etc.

          If Karen continues with this “fight” under the mantle of “I am protecting all women and children in Connecticut from predatory lawyers” I think she is either still in a manic episode, must have lots of time and money to burn, or both.

          • Who do you trust on a contract? A lawyer. The point is this is not a normal attorney contract but a predatory one. The judge overseeing this case raised the issue.

          • The judge said it was “non-standard,” right? That doesn’t mean there is anything illegal or even unethical about it. It’s just not the standard retainer. Plus It’s not like Nusbaum hid that clause or wrote it in convoluted gobbledygook language. It’s written in plain and clear language and placed directly above where the client signs.

            Idk. Call me a skeptic, but I think this “fight” is dead in the water. Except if she goes to arbitration maybe that will get her some money back. But trying to say mandatory arbitration/choice of venue is illegal etc is total B.S. and a waste of time.

          • “(A)ny … persons qualified by law to issue subpoenas in civil actions (Ms. Riordan, for example) shall have power to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, papers and other evidence at arbitration hearings”.

            “Any party to a written agreement for arbitration” (Ms Riordan, for example) “may make application to the Superior Court in the manner and for the reasons prescribed by law for taking depositions to be used in a civil action, for use as evidence in an arbitration”.

            “Sec. 52-412. Subpoenas and depositions …

            (a) Any arbitrator or umpire and any other persons qualified by law to issue subpoenas in civil actions shall have power to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, papers and other evidence at arbitration hearings. The subpoenas shall be served in the manner provided by law for the service of subpoenas in a civil action and shall be returnable to the arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire …

            … (c) Any party to a written agreement for arbitration may make application to the Superior Court, or, when the court is not in session, to a judge thereof, having jurisdiction as provided in subsection (b) of this section, for an order directing the taking of depositions, in the manner and for the reasons prescribed by law for taking depositions to be used in a civil action, for use as evidence in an arbitration …”

            https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_909.htm#sec_52-424

  • Don’t go to Canada unless you want to be euthanized!
    Canada Euthanizing People BEGGING TO LIVE, Human CULLING Is Here As Canada Plans To Euthanize KIDS

  • The Big Guy, Commissar Joe Biden, is retaliating against Elon Musk.
    Elon Musk’s Companies Targeted By Federal Government, Retaliation Has Begun

  • Wasn’t Mr. Portonova involved in the cabal that destroyed Dan Lynch?

    Part of Dan Lynch’s testimony:

    “… In a public hearing on January 9, 2014, the Task Force charged with evaluating the issues and formulating recommendations heard testimony from scores of parents, as well as a smaller number of grandparents. It is clear that
    entire families – multi-generational wealth – is being siphoned from the accounts of families by less-than-ethical insiders who conspire to fuel conflict and leverage the nuances of the legal ease found within our statutes, as well as their relationships with certain family court judges, counselors and others …

    … I respectfully suggest that the judiciary must take immediate action under its inherent authority to prioritize the formulation of a truly independent panel to investigate the claims brought forth regarding the underlying fraud, corruption, and conspiracy which is ongoing in our family court system. …”

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/JUDdata/Tmy/2014SB-00494-R000331-Daniel%20M.%20Lynch-TMY.PDF

  • I didn’t read the entire docket, and vehemently oppose mandatory arbitration clauses in any event. However, based upon the information presented here, I support Ms. Riordan’s claims of professional misconduct against Mr. Nusbaum. Despite Nusbaum’s retainer agreement clause specifying “no discovery,” Connecticut’s Statewide Grievance Committee has full subpoena powers in investigating alleged attorney misconduct. The court [Lee, J.] likely erred in dismissing Riordan’s motion to refer Nusbaum and Trembicki to disciplinary counsel [Docket Entry 111.00], though Riordan could’ve initiated this process directly with the SGC on her own – if she hasn’t done so already.

    • The Connecticut state wide grievance committee is a complete joke. They don’t do anything to anyone who is playing the game. Full of family court players. The entire legal system in Connecticut is part of the problem. Wake up Connecticut. Follow the funding

  • I love this guy Nusbuam. Holy shit scam city lawyer. If you want to see cheating lawyer this guy is it. Thanks for exposing this crum. I hope people read this and don’t use him. Clients I mean.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com

Archives