# Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · June 28, 1983 · 190 Conn. 510

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767273

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary M. Heslin, Commissioner of Consumer Protection v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** June 28, 1983
- **Citations:** 190 Conn. 510; 461 A.2d 938; 1983 Conn. LEXIS 535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parskey
- **Judges:** Peters, Parskey, Shea, Sponzo, Spada
- **Cited by:** 163 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767273

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the regulation of attorney conduct is in at least some respects a shared power of the judicial and legislative branches

## Opinion text

Parskey, J.
(concurring). I agree that the legal profession may, under certain circumstances, be subject to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110q; and that in these circumstances the act is constitutional. I also agree that the defendant by its activity was engaged in a trade or commerce within the meaning of § 42-110a (4) and that therefore it was subject to investigation by the plaintiff for alleged violations of the act. I do not construe the court’s opinion as saying more than this. Other problems are reserved for another day. See Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 , 788n, 95 S. Ct. 2004 , 44 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1975).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767273. Public record. Not legal advice.