Brown, Esq., Donald v. McGoldrick, Jill M., et al.

Case Background

On October 5, 2021, the Plaintiff Donald M. Brown, a licensed attorney, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Jill M. McGoldrick, Esq. and The Law Offices of Jill M. McGoldrick LLC. He alleged unjust enrichment, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and fraudulent inducement after McGoldrick’s office took over Brown’s client’s personal injury case and failed to pay the agreed-upon referral fee after settlement.

The case was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, New Haven Judicial Division. Judges Barbara Jongbloed, Matthew Frechette, and Nicole Tung presided over this case. [Case number: NNH-CV21-6117955-S]

Cause

Scott Cascella, a former client, reached out to the Plaintiff Donald M. Brown for representation in a personal injury case involving a severe injury. On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Scott Cascella to represent him. The agreement stipulated that the Plaintiff would receive one-third of any recovery as a contingency fee.

Plaintiff Brown met Mr. Cascella at the hospital, per his request, to initiate the intake process. Brown then took steps to obtain medical records and other relevant reports. Brown is a licensed attorney in Connecticut and the Federal District Court, with a principal office at 32 Pine Tree Lane, Avon, CT.

The Defendants, Jill M. McGoldrick, Esq. and The Law Offices of Jill M. McGoldrick LLC, are located at 25 High Street, Milford, CT. Shortly after the Plaintiff’s retention, McGoldrick’s office contacted the Plaintiff, stating that Jill McGoldrick had met with Mr. Cascella and was “taking over” the case, despite knowing that Mr. Cascella was already represented.

An employee from McGoldrick’s office orally agreed to pay a referral fee of one-third of the recovery from the lawsuit. Additionally, McGoldrick’s office requested all records from the Plaintiff in writing. Emails were exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, confirming the referral fee agreement, with no objections raised.

On or around January 5, 2021, the Defendants settled the case but ignored the Plaintiff’s email demand for payment of the agreed referral fee, which totaled $58,333.33. The Defendants then became evasive and obstructive, avoiding their obligation to pay the Plaintiff.

Damages

The Plaintiff requested that the Court grant appropriate relief, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and consequential damages. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought any other legal or equitable relief that the Court deemed fair and just.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Donald M. Brown
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Luis Medina
  • Defendant(s):  Jill M. McGoldrick, Esq.| The Law Offices of Jill M. McGoldrick LLC
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Isabelle L. Koch

Claims

The Plaintiff claimed breach of contract, stating that Mr. Cascella retained him under a written agreement with a one-third contingency fee. Despite this, the Defendants took over the case, agreed to pay a referral fee, and later failed to honor the agreement. The Plaintiff also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment, arguing that the Defendants benefitted from his work and the transfer of the case file but did not compensate him.

The Plaintiff further alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), claiming that the Defendants engaged in unfair practices by failing to pay the agreed referral fee and induced the Plaintiff to provide his work without intent to honor the fee. Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed fraudulent inducement, asserting that the Defendants knowingly misrepresented their intent to pay the agreed referral fee when they induced him to turn over his file and work. As a result of these actions, the Plaintiff sought damages.

Defense

The Defendant denied all the allegations levied against him by the Plaintiff.

Jury Verdict

On November 6, 2024, the Connecticut jury found in favor of the Defendants on the claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the CUTPA, and fraudulent inducement. A defense verdict was entered.

Court Documents:

Available upon request