To The Editor:

As an immigration lawyer, I took a special interest in the two articles in the July 24 edition of The Connecticut Law Tribune involving the lack of knowledge about immigration law: “Deportation Threat A Minefield For Lawyer” and “Attorney Accused Of Aiding Illegal Aliens.”

In reading these articles, I am again reminded how little exposure members of the bar have with a law that can touch many areas of practice. The immigration consequences of criminal law often results in a lifetime banishment from the U.S., but other areas of the law are also affected by whether or not someone is a U.S. citizen.

Trust-and-estate lawyers, as well as tax attorneys, also must keep in mind the draconian effect, for example, on an estate if one of the parties is a noncitizen. In addition, divorce attorneys need to understand that a divorce, if occurring during the first two years of someone’s “conditional” green card, could leave that client without legal status or ability to remain permanently in the U.S.

My hope is that by reading the type of articles, such as those that appeared in the Tribune, lawyers will become educated. Too often, the mistaken impression is that immigration lawyers simply fill out forms.

Jacqueline D. Bucar, Esq.

Murtha Cullina, New Haven

To The Editor:

There are a number of ironies in the current controversy surrounding [former Chief] Justice William Sullivan.

The first irony is that Justice Sullivan has been attacked for months because he candidly and honestly answered a question from another justice about why he had delayed the release of an opinion. When asked, he said that he was doing it to help Justice [Peter T.]Zarella’s confirmation as chief justice. Had Justice Sullivan believed he was doing anything wrong, isn’t it likely that he would have come up with another reason instead of telling the truth?

Another irony is that no one’s motives are being examined by the newspapers except the one person who actually told the truth about his motive, Justice Sullivan. This controversy arose in the context of a succession issue for chief justice and in the middle of an election year. Obviously, under those circumstances, every single other player in this drama had a political agenda for attacking Justice Sullivan, yet there’s been no reporting as to what those agendas might be. Isn’t a good newspaper covering an extended story supposed to provide its readers with insight into everyone’s motives so that they can understand what’s really going on and why?

Joanne Rainone


To The Editor:

For the past few months, I’ve been reading what’s been said in the papers about Justice William “Tocco” Sullivan. It’s made me both sad and angry, because what’s being said is so terribly unfair to someone who’s truly a great man. People who don’t know him are getting a completely false impression of who he is.

Tocco is one of those guys who’ve spent their lives helping people. He does it almost reflexively because that’s the way he was raised. Along the way, he’s helped thousands of people. In Waterbury, where he’s from, people know him, admire him and are very proud of him.

It’s very troubling for those of us who know Tocco to see how, at the end of a great career, he’s been attacked in the press for one small thing. While we try to write it off to politics in an election year, that doesn’t really work. It seems to many of us that newspapers have an obligation to tell their readers about his whole life and career when they’re criticizing him for something, instead of simply vilifying them.

Eleanor McCarthy