THE ETHICS REPORTER

August 15, 2025

When Zealous Advocacy Crosses the Line: The Disbarment of Attorney Nickola J. Cunha

When Zealous Advocacy Crosses the Line: The Disbarment of Attorney Nickola J. Cunha

In January 2022, Connecticut attorney Nickola J. Cunha was disbarred after a judge found she made unsupported allegations of judicial bias and misrepresented facts in a heated divorce case. In 2024, Connecticut’s Appellate Court upheld the disbarment and other related orders. The case has since become a touchstone in discussions about courtroom advocacy, professional ethics, and free speech limits for attorneys.

Ambrose v. Ambrose, 223 Conn. App. 609, 309 A.3d 305 (2024)
In re Cunha, 230 Conn. App. 265 (2024)
ABA Journal & Connecticut judicial opinions on disbarment proceedings

The controversy began in Ambrose v. Ambrose, a contentious marriage dissolution. During the proceedings, Cunha sought to disqualify the presiding judge, alleging religious bias and other serious misconduct. When pressed for evidence, she pointed primarily to unfavorable rulings rather than concrete proof.

Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher found these accusations unsupported, misleading, and disruptive to the court process. This triggered a separate disciplinary hearing.

In the January 25, 2022 memorandum, Judge Moukawsher concluded that Cunha’s conduct violated seven Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Court identified misconduct and scheduled a separate discipline hearing, Disbarment ordered with a five year minimum before reinstatement could be requested.

Trustee appointed to handle client matters. Cunha was later found in contempt for withdrawing $30,000 from her IOLTA account, prompting a court-ordered audit.
In 2024, the Appellate Court affirmed the disbarment, rejecting due process and First Amendment challenges.Later in 2024, the court imposed an extra 30-month suspension to run after any reinstatement.

This case shows how in court misconduct can lead to immediate discipline by a presiding judge, it also clarifies the limits of attorney speech in court under ethical rules.

Back up allegations with clear, record based evidence
Withdraw claims if evidence cannot be substantiated
Maintain courtroom decorum at all times
Manage IOLTA accounts with absolute transparency especially during disciplinary proceedings.

 

Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rule analyses, and disciplinary updates

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