Opinion
(15447)
Argued September 27, 1996
Officially released November 12, 1996
Petition to enjoin the defendant from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the defendant filed a counterclaim, and referred to Hon. Frances Allen, state trial referee, who granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim and, thereafter, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment thereon; thereafter, the court, Norko, J., denied the defendant's motion to open the judgment and motion to vacate the judgment, and the defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Roney L. Harris, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Maureen A. Horgan, assistant bar counsel, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff, the statewide grievance committee, brought this action seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant, Roney L. Harris, from the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant had violated General Statutes § 51-88 by performing acts commonly understood to be the practice of law. It was undisputed that the defendant, who is not an attorney, ran an advertisement in the Hartford Courant, titled "Uncontested Pro se Divorce," in which he represented that "Paralegals prepare all papers for your signing and step you through the self-help divorce." The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).
The defendant renews on appeal the challenges that he raised below to the trial court's jurisdiction over his person and to the merits of the judgment rendered by the trial court. The trial court, Hon. Frances Allen, state trial referee, considered and rejected the defendant's jurisdictional and constitutional challenges, and the trial court, Norko, J., considered and denied his motion to open the judgment and motion to vacate the judgment against him. Upon a careful review of the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be sustained. See Statewide Grievance Committee v. Patton, 239 Conn. 251, 683 A.2d 1359 (1996).
The defendant filed a brief which rendered us no assistance and did not discuss the issues at oral argument.