Irena Maier

​Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford, CT) secured a defense victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, obtaining the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut Attorney. In this action, the plaintiff alleged that our client, who represented the plaintiff’s adversary in an underlying matter, violated the plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and engaged in conspiracy, racketeering, legal malpractice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Steve and Irena filed a motion to dismiss on all counts. They argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) with respect to the conspiracy, racketeering and civil rights violation claims, and that the legal malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by Connecticut's litigation privilege doctrine, and therefore should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Steve and Irena also filed additional moving papers challenging the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments and granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford Judicial District, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut attorney. In this legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action, the plaintiff claimed that our client, who represented the plaintiff in an underlying product liability matter, failed to file a timely objection to a summary judgment motion, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Irena and Steve moved for summary judgment on both counts, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that he would have prevailed in the underlying action – an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims. In support of their motion, the Stamford team relied on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in the present case and the expert disclosures from the underlying matter, and submitted additional moving papers addressing the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The Court agreed with Steve and Irena’s arguments, finding that the record was devoid of evidence supporting a rational inference that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying case, and granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety.