Court-rule connections: proposals, working groups and adopted rules

Research checked September 14, 2026. The new records strengthen several documented rulemaking connections, but they do not establish that an attorney controlled the final rule or influenced a particular case. The clearest additional link is a named judicial working group announced to study the same hybrid-appearance proposal on which Blomberg had submitted an AAML comment. Other records establish the eventual adoption of the Connecticut ethics provision and the Pathways replacements, as well as the adoption—not merely discussion—of the 2026 appellate amendments.

Blomberg’s comment and the Albis–Adelman–Heller working group

Blomberg’s November 12, 2018 email to Joseph Del Ciampo said the AAML chapter’s Board of Managers had discussed hybrid representation. She proposed adding a limited-appearance exception to the draft restriction on simultaneous attorney and self-represented appearances. She signed as Connecticut AAML president. This is an organizational comment on a proposed rule, not an order, an adopted restriction, or evidence of a case-specific instruction.¹

The January 22, 2019 Rules Committee minutes identify the underlying §3-8 proposal as Judge Gerard I. Adelman’s. They record Judge Michael A. Albis addressing the committee, and announce a working group comprising Albis, Adelman and Donna Nelson Heller, with input from Court Operations and Superior Court clerks. The matter was tabled for three months for study and a report. The CBA-hosted copy is explicitly marked draft; the February 11 copy is also marked draft and records approval of the January minutes as amended, without specifying the amendments. It does not independently settle the final January wording. The group’s subsequent meetings or report have not been recovered.²³

This establishes a specific public-policy route: Blomberg/AAML comment → Rules Committee counsel → consideration of the same proposal → named judicial working group. It does not establish that Blomberg served on that group, that it adopted her proposed language, or that the proposal was aimed at an identifiable litigant. The final disposition of this particular 2018 wording remains untraced in this round. Contemporary working-group membership should not be presented as a current committee roster.

Wade and Goldsby: the original proposal was replaced, not simply enacted verbatim

The CBA’s November–December 2021 interview with its working-group chair, Cecil J. Thomas, describes Aigné Goldsby and Megan Wade initiating the June 2020 request. It identifies Ndidi N. Moses as the president who established the CBA working group and Thomas as its chair. The association developed a Connecticut-specific text; its House of Delegates approved that version on September 10, 2020, by 39–11 with one abstention. The original ABA-model proposal was withdrawn from consideration.⁴

Official February 8, 2021 minutes separately identify Wade’s proposal and the CBA substitute. Michael Bowler, Thomas and Marcy Stovall addressed the committee. The committee voted to send the proposed amendment to a public hearing, with Barbara Bellis opposed to that procedural step. This was not the final adoption vote.⁵

The adopted provision is Connecticut RPC 8.4(7), not a Connecticut rule numbered 8.4(g). Its printed history records adoption June 11, 2021, effective January 1, 2022. This closes the earlier adoption-status gap while preserving the distinction between the initiators, the association’s revised proposal, the committee’s hearing vote and adoption by the Superior Court judges.⁶ No inference about any participant’s disciplinary conduct follows from participation in this rulemaking.

Pathways: the family-rule drafts led to replacement sections

The March 25, 2024 approved minutes identify Leo Diana presenting the revised Pathways proposal, RC ID 2023-008. The committee unanimously sent the revisions to public hearing. Appendix C proposes repealing old §25-34 and replacing it with §25-34A; it also contains the related case-management revisions. This is later than the previously located March 11 stakeholder transmittal and demonstrates the next formal procedural step.⁷

On May 13, 2024, the committee voted to send its published recommendations to the judges for adoption. The minutes list McDonald, Armata, Chaplin, Green, Macierowski, McLaughlin, Pierson, Prats and Stewart, with staff Del Ciampo, O’Connor and Petruzzelli. Attendance is not a separate personal connection among every pair. Stewart’s recorded abstention concerned §2-27A, not the Pathways rules.⁸

The published 2025 Practice Book records repeal of §§25-34 and 25-50 and adoption of §25-34A, Scheduling of Motions, and §25-50A, Case Management under Pathways, on June 14, 2024, effective January 1, 2025.⁹ This establishes adoption of the replacement framework, not wholesale approval of every earlier draft, stakeholder position, or later implementation decision.

Supreme and Appellate Courts: the 2026 proposal became an adopted amendment

The July 14, 2026 Connecticut Law Journal notice records Supreme Court approval on June 30 and Appellate Court approval on June 23, attested by Chief Clerk Carl D. Cicchetti. It adopts the revisions to §§60-4, 62-6 and 85-2 effective July 14; the other listed amendments take effect January 1, 2027. Section 60-4 now includes law firms within counsel of record. The document closes the adoption gap left by the April 2026 committee minutes.¹⁰

A separate amendment to §63-4 restores docketing-statement disclosure of persons or entities whose legal interests could raise a substantial question about a judge’s personal or financial interest. That amendment is adopted but not effective until January 1, 2027. The pre-existing §60-4 certificate-of-interested-entities definition must not be described as newly created by this amendment. These are distinct disclosure mechanisms, not proof of an undisclosed relationship in any case.¹¹

Source limits and remaining questions

The live Judicial Branch rules index was retrieved September 14. Its current amendment links still point to the July 14 appellate, June 23 Superior Court and April 7 evidence notices. Cached web versions of that index omit the newer amendments and should not control the cutoff.¹² Several direct historical-PDF requests returned access errors; the CBA-hosted minutes and available official text were used with those differences retained. A fresh full 2026 Practice Book download timed out twice; the dated 2025 official edition supplies the historical adoption records here. Nothing in this report is a current-case filing or a case-specific disqualification assessment.

Sources

1. Jill Heitler Blomberg, AAML comment on hybrid appearances, November 12, 2018, one-page CBA-hosted submission.

2. Rules Committee, January 22, 2019 draft minutes, pp.2–3, item7. Original PDF retrieved from CBA September 14, 2026.

3. Rules Committee, February 11, 2019 draft minutes in the March packet, item1. CBA-hosted PDF explicitly marked draft, retrieved September 14, 2026.

4. Connecticut Bar Association, Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession, CT Lawyer, November–December 2021, pp.30–31; interview with Cecil J. Thomas. First-party account of the CBA’s process, not an independent account of every participant’s conduct.

5. Rules Committee, February 8, 2021 approved minutes, item4, p.2. Official text available through the web reader; direct capture returned HTTP403.

6. Connecticut Judicial Branch, Official 2025 Practice Book, RPC8.4 and §§25-34,25-34A,25-50,25-50A. Published adoption histories and text, accessed through the official web-reader copy and cross-checked against the local rules index; direct download returned HTTP403. The edition is historical, not a claim that no later amendment exists.

7. Rules Committee, March 25, 2024 approved minutes and appendices, item3, p.2, AppendixC. Official text retrieved through the web reader; direct capture returned HTTP403.

8. Rules Committee, May 13, 2024 approved minutes, pp.1–2. Official text retrieved through the web reader; direct capture returned HTTP403.

9. Connecticut Judicial Branch, Adopted Rules of Appellate Procedure, Connecticut Law Journal, July14,2026, notice and §§60-4,63-4. Original PDF retrieved September14,2026; the source retains separate adoption and effective dates.

10. Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Rules index, live HTML retrieved September14,2026. The saved live capture, not the older search-reader cache, establishes which amendment links were listed at this check.