SHERIF ABDELSAME v. MARIA DE CASTRO FODEN.

2005 Ct. Sup. 5256
No. CV 04-4000866SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
March 23, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE
WAGNER, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

Count One of this two-count revised complaint charges defendant attorney with legal malpractice for various actions with respect to plaintiff’s immigration matters, mainly involving approval of a trip by plaintiff outside of this country which allegedly resulted in plaintiff being barred from the United States for a period of five years.

Count Two alleges breach of fiduciary duty based on the same allegations in Count One.

In Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz Schatz, Ribicoff Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48, 56, 57 (1998), our Supreme Court stated:

Professional negligence alone, however, does not give rise automatically to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Although an attorney-client relationship imposes a fiduciary duty on the attorney; see Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 183-84, 627 A.2d 414
(1993); not every instance of professional negligence results in a breach of that fiduciary duty. “[A] fiduciary or confidential relationship is characterized by a unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties, one of whom has superior knowledge, skill or expertise and is under a duty to represent the interests of the other. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Konover Development Corp. v. Zeller, 228 Conn. 206, 219, 635 A.2d 798 (1994). Professional negligence implicates a duty of care, while breach of a fiduciary duty implicates a duty of loyalty and honesty. See Edwards v. Thorpe, 876 F.Sup. 693, 694 (E.D.Pa. 1995); Bukoskey v. Walter W. Shuham, CPA, P.C.,
666 F.Sup. 181, 184 (D.Alaska 1987).

CT Page 5257

The second count makes no allegations concerning defendant’s loyalty or honesty and is therefore insufficient.

Motion to Strike Count Two is granted.

Wagner Judge Trial Referee

CT Page 5258