Pavano v. Anderson: $204K Jury Verdict in Legal Malpractice
Table of Contents
Case Background
This legal dispute began when Paolo Pavano and his business, Paul’s Cutting-Edge Lawn Care, LLC, sought professional legal assistance to protect their business identity. In early 2018, the Plaintiffs hired Attorney William Anderson and his firm, Anderson Law Offices, LLC, to handle a trademark infringement claim. The Plaintiffs alleged that another entity, Martin Wilson doing business as Cutting-Edge Landscaping, had infringed upon their trademark.
Attorney Anderson initiated a lawsuit on the Plaintiffs' behalf in February 2018. Over the following three years, the professional landscape shifted as Attorney Anderson moved between different law firms. In July 2019, he joined Brignole, Bush and Lewis, LLC, which then took over the Plaintiffs' representation. Anderson later departed that firm in January 2021, but Brignole, Bush and Lewis, LLC continued to represent Pavano in the ongoing trademark litigation.
The professional relationship soured after the Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' original trademark lawsuit in December 2021. This dismissal left the Plaintiffs without the legal remedy they had sought for years, prompting them to file a malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against their former attorneys in April 2022.
Cause
The Plaintiffs based their legal action on the claim that their attorneys failed to meet the professional standards required of legal practitioners in Connecticut. They alleged that the Defendants' handling of the trademark case was characterized by negligence and a lack of diligence, which ultimately led to the Court dismissing their claims.
Injury
The primary injury claimed by Paolo Pavano and his company was the loss of their legal standing and the resulting financial damage. By allowing the trademark lawsuit to be dismissed and failing to take the necessary steps to reinstate it or correct procedural flaws, the attorneys effectively deprived the Plaintiffs of their day in Court and the potential protections for their business brand.
Damages Sought
In their initial complaint, the Plaintiffs demanded monetary damages exceeding $15,000. They sought compensation for the losses they sustained due to the alleged malpractice, as well as any other relief the Court deemed appropriate under the law.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation proceeded through the Litchfield Judicial District at Torrington, involving multiple counts of professional misconduct. The Plaintiffs focused their arguments on the procedural failures of the Defendants, while the defense maintained that they had acted appropriately or lacked sufficient information to confirm many of the Plaintiffs' specific grievances.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Paolo Pavano | Paul's Cutting-Edge Lawn Care, LLC.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Cheryl E. Heffernan
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Richard Royston | Robert S. Smith
Defendant(s): William Anderson, Esq | Anderson Law Offices, LLC | Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Sarah F. D'Addabbo
Experts for Defendant(s): William Murray | Michael J. Rye
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the Defendants held a unique position of trust and possessed superior knowledge and skill. They contended that the attorneys breached this trust by failing to prosecute the trademark case effectively, specifically pointing to failures in choosing the correct Court and the proper parties for the suit.
Counsel for the Defendants responded by admitting the basic facts of the employment history and the timeline of representation but denied any wrongdoing. They frequently asserted that the judicial record spoke for itself and argued that the Plaintiffs' claims of negligence were unfounded.
Claims
The complaint detailed several distinct claims against the legal professionals. Under the negligence count, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendants failed to diligently prosecute the lawsuit and refused to take the steps required to reinstate the case after it was dismissed. They also claimed the attorneys filed the action in the wrong Court and failed to name the correct parties, which rendered the litigation flawed from the start.
The second major claim involved a breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs argued that because they had placed a high degree of confidence in their lawyers, the lawyers owed them a duty to protect their interests. They alleged this duty was violated when the attorneys allowed the suit to be dismissed and failed to correct the defective litigation in a timely manner.
Defense
In their formal answer, the Defendants utilized a strategy of limited admissions and general denials. They admitted that Attorney Anderson had worked for the various firms mentioned but denied that any resulting damages were caused by their negligence. For many of the specific allegations regarding the quality of their work, they claimed they lacked enough information to provide a response, thereby forcing the Plaintiffs to prove every detail of their case in Court.
Jury Verdict
After considering the evidence presented during the trial, the jury reached a decision on December 11, 2025. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs, Paolo Pavano and Paul's Cutting-Edge Lawn Care, LLC, and against the Defendants.
The jury determined that the attorneys and their firms were liable for the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs. They awarded a total sum of $204,343.38 to the Plaintiffs. This award served as the final compensation for the losses the Plaintiffs suffered during the mishandled trademark litigation. Jury Foreperson Elizabeth A. Brancardi signed the verdict form on December 12, 2025, officially closing this chapter of the legal battle.