7 Dec. 2006
Boutique Associate Deprived of Bonus Comes Out Ahead, Thanks to Judge's Award
Thomas B. Scheffey
The Connecticut Law Tribune
12-07-2006
New London, Conn., personal-injury lawyer Robert I. Reardon has won millions persuading juries that he and his clients are people to believe in.
But when Reardon tried to convince Waterbury Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh that Reardon's former associate Angelo A. Ziotas was fired for poor performance, the judge just wouldn't buy it.
Instead, Eveleigh chose to believe Ziotas' version -- that Reardon was annoyed at him because of favorable publicity Ziotas received after a 1998 court case. Ruling last month, the judge decided Reardon wrongfully withheld a year-end bonus of $50,000 after Ziotas quit in October 1998 for an associate's job at Stamford, Conn.'s Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky. As a bonus on top of the bonus, Eveleigh added another $44,860 in prejudgment interest, for a total award of $94,860.
Ziotas now works at Silver, Golub & Teitell in Stamford.
Reardon, represented by New Haven, Conn., attorney William F. Gallagher, has filed a notice of appeal disputing Eveleigh's conclusions. Like Reardon, Gallagher is a former president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association.
"Basically, what Judge Eveleigh did is take all the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Angelo, and put them in the memorandum of decision," said Gallagher. "I can't do anything about that. But to reach that result, he had to ignore the testimony of Reardon and his witnesses, who included Scott Camassar, Mark DuBois, John Nazzaro and others," Gallagher said. Camassar and Dubois, now Connecticut's chief disciplinary counsel, are also former Reardon associates. Nazzaro is Reardon's former law partner. Gallagher said the judge also mistakenly made the year-end bonus a part of the agreed-on compensation.
Reardon is attempting to initially appeal the sole issue of whether his alleged oral $25,000 offer of judgment -- made on condition that the file be sealed or the result remain confidential -- was a valid acceptance under the state's offer-of-judgment statute.
"It's a matter of first impression," said Gallagher.
Eventually, his hardest task, Gallagher admitted, will be to prove that the judge, in a bench trial, was wrong on the facts. "It's been done. This decision was clearly against the weight of the evidence," said Gallagher.
At trial, Reardon maintained that Ziotas hurt his career at the firm through a potentially costly mistake.
"I think the testimony we had was overwhelming, that Angelo had blown statutes of limitations for 30 breast implant clients, causing a malpractice claim with a potential $5 million loss. It got itself worked out in the end," said Gallagher.
Ziotas' lawyer, Anthony M. Fitzgerald of the New Haven office of Carmody & Torrance, countered, "The only thing that was agreed upon is that [the matter] never cost the firm a penny," Fitzgerald said.
The case provides an inside glimpse into Reardon's tightly controlled personal-injury boutique, which was known as Reardon & Nazzaro in April 1992, when Ziotas came aboard fresh out of law school. From 1995 on, Reardon was the firm's sole partner and "dominated and controlled" its affairs with all the powers of "a Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of a corporation," Eveleigh wrote.
After Ziotas' first 10 months of work, Reardon gave him a non-negotiable associate's contract with instructions that his continued employment was contingent on his signing the document, according to Eveleigh's ruling. The paragraph entitled "Compensation" listed eight criteria: seniority, business generation, productivity, work quality, work profitability, participation in professional and pro bono work, outside activities and "Loyalty and commitment to the Firm."
In Ziotas' initial job interview, the judge wrote, Reardon explained the firm's practice of "keeping salaries low to fund cases," and then paying substantial year-end lump sum bonuses. When Ziotas asked to increase his initial $35,000 salary to $40,000, he was told that if he did not get a $5,000 bonus, "he would not be doing well," Eveleigh noted.
In 1998, the two men had a dispute, which Ziotas said was "due to Reardon's reaction to publicity" Ziotas received in The Connecticut Law Tribune after winning a court case. Fitzgerald described a "running sore" of jealously between the two men after Reardon appeared to take credit for a case Ziotas had actually tried and won.
Gallagher, however, said it was Ziotas who acted unprofessionally. "It's remarkable to have an employed associate employee treating the boss the way he did -- it just struck me as extraordinary," said Gallagher. "There was a flare-up of tempers, Angelo essentially told his boss to f--- off and left the room."
Eveleigh rejected Reardon's contention that Ziotas was actually discharged for poor work performance. That claim, the judge reasoned, does not jibe with the fact Ziotas' salary and bonuses steadily rose every year he was at the firm.
Eveleigh wrote that he believed Ziotas asked Reardon about receiving his 1998 bonus, after their August dispute. Reardon's response, the judge found, was, "I can't believe you think that little of me. You know this has been a very successful year for the firm, and for you, and that you're going to get a bonus that fairly reflects that."
Ziotas got no bonus.
Construing the employment contract, Eveleigh found it was silent on how or when the compensation was to be paid. Since Reardon drafted the contract unilaterally and required it to be signed as a condition of employment, any ambiguity is to be construed in Ziotas' favor, he determined. The judge held that the annual bonus was part of the compensation package described in the contract.
