Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-006 CFD `
A 5 Document 17 Filed O1/#004 Page 1 of 4
A F F I D A V I T
I, Martin Gold, do swear, depose and say:
1. My birth date is January 18, 1945, and I understand the meaning of the oath.
2. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Connecticut.
3. I am a partner inthe law firm of Butler, Norris & Gold ("the Firm"), which has its
offices at 254 Prospect Avenue in Hartford, Connecticut. The Firm presently consists of five
partners, one contract partner and five associates. The partners have an ownership interest in the
Firm; the associates are employees, as is the contract partner. The contract partner has no
ownership interest in the Firm.
4. Although the Firm provides many different legal services, the primary work of the
Firm is personal injury lawsuits. A significant amount of the revenue ofthe Firm comes from
personal injury lawsuits. ,
5. In addition to representing plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, the Firm also
represents defendants in criminal proceedings, prepares wills and provides estate planning, I
handles trusts and estates, and provides business or corporate law services to small and mid-size
companies in Connecticut.
6. The plaintiff was hired in 1995 as an associate. I had known the plaintiff for a
number of years, both on a personal and professional level. I learned in 1995 that the attorney, I
with whom the plaintiff was working, was retiring. I also had reason to believe that plaintiff
E’5l’§/tiliféf/63‘53V1

Case 3:O3—cv-OO6iCFD Document 17 Filed O1/#004 Page 2 of 4
either could not or would not continue the practice of the retiring attorney. Many attorneys in
similar circumstances would simply take over the practice of the retiring attorney; however, the
plaintiff chose not to do so. ‘ ‘
7. Although I knew that plaintiff, despite a Yale law degree and more than thirty
years of legal experience, would not bring in any significant business to the Firm, I nevertheless
believed that he could make a contribution to our F inn, and decided to hire plaintiff
8. When plaintiff was hired, I knew that he had not had a lot of trial experience. As
the most lucrative parts of our practice are personal injury and criminal work-, most of our
attorneys must be able to do trial work. It is the ability to successfully take a case to trial that
prompts appropriate settlements and plea agreements.
9. Although plaintiff did not handle trial work except on rare occasions, I thought he
could assist other attorneys in research projects or other non-trial work such as zoning and
appellate matters. Other attorneys could call upon plaintiff to research and write a legal
memorandum on a particular issue of law that could arise in their cases.
10. After plaintiff was hired, he worked with Alan Rome, who was a partner of the
Firm, and Alan Reisner, who was an associate of the Firm at that time. Both Mr. Rome and Mr.
Reisner are brothers-in—law of mine. _
11. Both Mr. Rome and Mr. Reisner handled many personal injury matters. Plaintiff
supported their work.
‘ 2
$5i’3t3?€{§?f“ ”"‘

Case 3:03-cv-006.CFD Document 17 Filed O1/#004 Page 3 of 4
12. There came a time in the Summer of 2000 when Mr. Rome left the Finn and
joined with a former associate of the Firm, Mr. Katz, to start a new law practice, Rome & Katz.
Mr. Rome had handled a significant amount of the Firm’s personal injury cases. He took many
Firm files with him. Mr. Rome’s departure was neither pleasant nor easy.
13. Although plaintiff did a significant amount of work with Mr. Rome and Mr.
Rome took a significant number of files or cases with him, he did not ask plaintiff to join his
14. Regardless of the reasons why Mr. Rome did not take plaintiff with him when he
left the Firm, Mr. Rome’s departure left the plaintiff with a reduced workload.
15. Mr. Rome’s departure and his partnership with Mr. Katz raised several issues with
the Firm. Though litigation was threatened between the Firm and Mr. Rome, the parties
negotiated a settlement. During the negotiations that lead to the settlement, Mr. Rome was
represented by Mr. Eliot Gersten.
16. After plaintiff was terminated from the Firm, he entered into some arrangement
with Mr. Rome by which plaintiff either became employed or associated with Mr. Rome’s law
firm.
17. At all times during plaintiffs employment with the Firm, he was an associate.
3
E5£€it?£S§®63‘”“l

Case 3:03-cv-0065CFD Document 17 Filed O1/VOO4 Page 4 of 4
18. The probate of Mrs. Hopfer’s estate was not handled by the Firm, nor was the
estate in any way related to Mr. Ellis’ employment by the Firm or the termination thereof.
if
' ARTIN F oro
STATE or coNNEcT1cUT; ss; i A
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared MARTIN GOLD, who,
upon being duly sworn, states that he has read the contents of the foregoing Affidavit and find
them to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
SWORN TO and subscribed before me this
Q Q M day of January, 2004.
. OTARY LIC
· r p T
Nancy M. Marrsro
NOTARY PUBLIC
State of Connecticut
My Commission Expires 9/30/06
4
BEJ/32036/4/663153vl
0l/29/O4—HRT/
i
i