Ankerman v. Mancuso

835 A.2d 471, 266 Conn. 925, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 513
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 4, 2003·No. SC 17086·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 79 Conn. App. 480 (AC 23369), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[926] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17086. James Colin Mulholland, in support of the petition. William L. Ankerman, pro se, in opposition. Decided November 4, 2003
“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court improperly refused to enforce a secondary mortgage loan transaction made by an attorney with a client despite its finding that the transaction violated the public policy underlying rule 1.8 (j) of the Rules of Professional Conduct?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ankerman v. Mancuso, 835 A.2d 471, 266 Conn. 925, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 513 (Colo. 2003).

835 A.2d 471 (Ankerman v. Mancuso) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ankerman v. Mancuso
860 A.2d 244 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2004)