Irv Pinsky is the Connecticut attorney who withdrew his lawsuit in which he claimed that the state of Connecticut should have stopped the Newtown tragedy.
His brilliant idea of how Connecticut might have stopped the madman clad in armor and shooting off hundreds of rounds of ammo is this:
It turns out he lost his Connecticut license from 5/1/2003 to 12/15/2006. He was also reprimanded May 1, 1989, case #87-0561.
The grievance that cost him his license can be found here.
The linked report is the proposed decision from the “STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, Mia Griffin, Complainant vs. Irving J. Pinsky, Respondent, Grievance Complaint #95-0215. He violated professional rules of conduct according to the decision. though he continued to practice under a New York license.
The misconduct allegation states that Pinsky, the Respondent, gave the complainant, a minor, $6000 regarding her suit, wouldn’t give her information about her case, had her sign a general release, and in the end, he might have lied when he said he gave the complainant the money after the statute of limitations:
[Emboldened words are mine for the sake of readability]
In or around 1989 the Complainant’s father engaged the Respondent to represent the Complainant in connection with injuries sustained in a 1989 bus accident. At the time the Respondent was engaged, the Complainant was a minor. During the course of the representation, the Complainant approached the Respondent for financial assistance.
The Respondent provided the Complainant with funds totaling approximately $6,000.00.
The Complainant requested information from the Respondent regarding the status of the case. The Respondent did not comply with the Complainant’s request for information. The Respondent did not keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of the case.
The Respondent attempted to limit his liability to the Complainant by having the Complainant sign a general release dated September 16, 1994. The Respondent did not advise the Complainant to consult with independent counsel before signing the general release.
After the filing of the grievance complaint, the Respondent contacted the Complainant and requested that the Complainant write a letter dated December 22, 1995 indicating that she had no complaint with the Respondent.
This reviewing committee also considered the following:
At the hearing before this reviewing committee, the Respondent claimed that he gave money to the Complainant after the expiration of the statue of limitations because he felt sorry for the Complainant. The Respondent denied having contact with the Complainant after the grievance complaint was filed.
This decision was sent to Superior Court for disposition. His license was suspended. Anyone can look up a Connecticut attorney or a firm’s record here.
I don’t know if Irv Pinsky is qualified but this is what his record says.
Another shot of Irv: