THE ETHICS REPORTER

August 4, 2025

Missteps And Misconduct: Connecticut’s Latest Ethics Cases

Missteps And Misconduct: Connecticut’s Latest Ethics Cases

Trust broken, Ethics Violated. Licenses lost. These are the lawyers making headlines in Connecticut.

 

Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Welsely S. Spears

In November 2024, the Connecticut Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment, alleging that Spears sent multiple late-night text messages to his female client in a child custody case. The texts included a request for a nude photo, stating:

“You like old people. Send me a picture of you. A sexy one. … A nude one would be perfect (sic).”
The client replied:
“This is very inappropriate of you. I thought you were better than that. You’re fired.”
Spears later apologized and admitted to the conduct during the disciplinary hearing.

Judge Carroll characterized Spears’s requests as a clear breach of professional trust, especially given the imminent court appearance.

The timing and content of the messages placed the client in a precarious position without legal representation heading into court. Despite Spears’s apology and explanation that he was at a celebratory gathering, the court held that such settings do not justify conduct outside the rules. “Achieving favorable client outcomes or being in a social setting does not excuse such behavior.
Spears was already serving a two-year suspension, imposed in October 2023 after making false and defamatory allegations against judges and prosecutorial officials.

The one-year suspension imposed in 2025 is to be served consecutively, beginning after completion of the two-year penalty already in effect.

The case illustrates a severe abuse of attorney client trust, especially in sensitive family-law contexts.
It reinforces the message that personal lapses in judgment or misguided attempts at informality can yield serious professional consequences, regardless of an attorney’s previous record or celebrated outcomes.

 

Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Jonathan J. Einhorn

While visiting clients at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center (Rhode Island) on May 21, 2023, Einhorn passed legal documents to detainees that were later tested and confirmed to be contaminated with synthetic cannabinoids (a Schedule I controlled substance). Though he signed a compliance form and specifically denied carrying contraband, correctional officers directly observed him delivering the stained paperwork.
Einhorn was charged in federal court with making a materially false statement or representation to corrections officers. He entered a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) on July 24, 2025, admitting there was enough evidence for conviction, but avoiding formal prosecution by agreeing to surrender his law license for 10 years and abide by other terms.
Professional Consequences: As part of the agreement:
•He must turn in his license within 90 days of the July 24 agreement.
•Einhorn is barred from accepting new clients and must notify all existing clients of his impending license surrender.
•If he fully complies with the DPA for 18 months, the government will dismiss the federal charge.
The case underscores profound responsibility of attorneys visiting detainees even unintentional breaches can provoke federal or professional discipline.
Contraband violations intersect with core ethical duties to avoid wrongdoing and uphold honesty.  Even without conviction, DPAs can carry serious professional penalties including multi-year licensing restrictions shaping an attorney’s career legacy.

Independent Journalism Needs You

You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.

We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.

If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.

Reader Supported

This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.

We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.

Join 47 readers who donated this month

47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters

Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.

The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.

← Back to all articles