Edward Nusbaum, a family law attorney based in Connecticut, has filed a motion to hold his former client, Karen Riordan, in contempt of court. The dispute centers on Riordan’s alleged failure to pay arbitration fees in a case involving Nusbaum’s billing practices.
Since 2020, Nusbaum has retained $64,000 of Riordan’s funds. He is now seeking a ruling from a paid arbitrator—rather than the state courts, which are free to the parties—to determine whether he may keep the money.
In 2020, Riordan retained Nusbaum, a Westport, Connecticut family law attorney, to represent her in a contentious custody and divorce proceeding. As part of their engagement, Nusbaum presented Riordan with a retainer agreement stipulating that any future dispute would be resolved through arbitration. The arbitration would be private. The arbitrator would be selected from among Nusbaum’s local peers—specifically, another family law attorney based in his hometown.
It was arbitration, yes—but of a particularly familiar flavor.
Nusbaum’s retainer also stipulated that arbitration would not allow for discovery.
Riordan signed the retainer agreement with Nusbaum. She paid him $40,000 up front, with the understanding that the sum would be billed against his hourly rate of $750.
The world has too many kinds of fear, and a mother’s fear is the worst kind. Karen Riordan feared for her children. He said he could help. She believed him.
FIVE YEARS LATER, A MOTION TO PUNISH
Five years after concluding his legal services for Riordan, Nusbaum has filed a contempt motion against Riordan for her inability to pay arbitration fees. Nusbaum is asking that she cover not only her share of the arbitration costs—but his as well.
There are many things a man can ask for in life. Nusbaum asked a judge to hold a mother in contempt. Not because she defied the law. Because she couldn’t afford the cost of a stranger deciding what’s fair.
Five years later. A woman who ran out of money. A man who never ran out of bills.
Nusbaum asked a judge to hold Riordan in contempt—not for defiance but because she couldn’t pay an arbitrator.
Riordan informed the court she was indigent and unemployed, and raised the issue of a possible fee waiver during a November 2024 hearing.
Judge John Kavanewsky told the parties to split the arbitration fees but if one couldn’t pay, the other could cover the cost and seek reimbursement.
In January 2025, Judge Kavanewsky picked retired Judge Antonio Robaina as arbitrator – from a list of possible arbitrators submitted by Nusbaum.
Robaina set his rate at $600 per hour. Riordan’s attorney, Tricia Lindsay, informed Robaina of her client’s indigency and to request alternative arrangements, including a potential fee waiver.
Neither of Nusbaum’s attorneys—Daniel Kaufman nor Alex Trembicki—objected to Riordan’s indigency claims. Kaufman acknowledged that the issue of a fee waiver had been addressed with Judge Kavanewsky.
Nusbaum lawyer, Daniel Kaufman, Callahan & Fusco
Nusbaum lawyer, Alex Trembicki
Despite the judge’s provision that a party could advance arbitration fees and seek reimbursement, neither Kaufman nor Trembicki proposed that Nusbaum do so.
Robaina, aware of Riordan’s financial situation, declined to take the case without payment.
And still Nusbaum wants her punished.
BILLING
In 2020, during the four-month period Nusbaum represented Riordan, his billing records totaled $98,000 and indicate his work primarily consisted of phone calls and email correspondence.
He did not file any motions, conduct depositions, or argue in court. Some of his lengthiest calls involved inquiries into Riordan’s financial situation. What he did was ask around. Who knew how much money Karen had? Could she borrow more? How much was her home worth?
Additionally, Nusbaum billed hours for facilitating the sale of Riordan’s home, a task that she had not requested or authorized.
MK10ART a painting of Ed Nusbaum – entitled ‘Sometimes Help Wears a Strange Disguise’.
SOLD THE MARITAL HOME, TOOK THE MONEY
The marital home, located in Westport, Connecticut, was ordered sold by Judge Jane Grossman as part of the divorce proceedings between Riordan and her husband.
Both Riordan and her husband had joint discretion on what was an acceptable offer.
Nusbaum coordinated with the Guardian ad Litem, opposing counsel, the real estate agent, and the court to direct Riordan’s share of the proceeds into his escrow account – for his alleged past due payments.
When a buyer made an offer, Riordan attempted to exercise her legal right to rescind within 72 hours. Nonetheless, Nusbaum lied to thc court —on the record—that she had agreed to the sale and did not disclose her rescission of the contract. Following the sale of the marital home, the $64,000 in proceeds allocated to Riordan was transferred into Nusbaum’s escrow account.
Having already consumed the $40,000 retainer, Nusbaum claimed he had earned the entire $64,000 and requested an additional $100,000 to continue representing Riordan.
Riordan was shocked. No court filings. No hearings. Just calls. A house she no longer owned. And stipulations she never saw that Nusbaum signed without consent.
Tricia Lindsay, Civil Rights, Constitutional and Family Law Attorney, has taken on the case to try to bring justice long overdue for her client.
Is Contempt Motion a Cover for $64K Billing Scandal?
At the center of the dispute is the $64,000, sitting in Nusbaum’s escrow account for the past five years.
Riordan’s attorney, Tricia S. Lindsay, argued that Nusbaum’s recent contempt motion fails to meet the statutory requirement under Connecticut law that contempt must be based on a willful violation.
Riordan’s financial disclosure was submitted in accordance with court orders and her ethical obligations as a litigant.
Her attorney is requesting that the court deny Nusbaum’s contempt motion and award reimbursement for the legal fees she incurred in responding to the contempt filing.
The contempt hearing is scheduled for June 2.
A Study of Billings Expected
If the matter proceeds to arbitration, Riordan may reciver some or all of the $64,000 held by Nusbaum and possibly some of the $40,000 already spent.
The arbitrator – whoever that may be – is expected to review Nusbaum’s invoices, which reflect numerous phone calls and email communications. Among them are 36 documented calls with Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Jocelyn Hurwitz, each recorded with precise durations—down to the tenth of an hour. Billed at $750 per hour.
Both Nusbaum and the GAL Hurwitz billed Riordan separately for the time each spent on her case; Like Nusbaum, GAL Hurwitz charged in precise increments down to the tenth of an hour. She billed at $450 per hour.
Did Nusbaum Bill for Calls, Emails, and Hearings That Never Happened?
Nusbaum invoiced Riordan for 36 phone calls with Hurwitz. However, Hurwitz’s billings reflect only 12 calls with Nusbaum.
Hurwitz’s invoicing is known to be meticulous, documenting every call, email, and action at $400 per hour, racking up bills of over $200,000. She did not account for 24 calls Nusbaum claims occurred.
Nusbaum billed thousands of dollars for those phantom calls and seeks to extract those funds from the $64,000 he continues to hold in escrow ( See: CT Atty Edward Nusbaum Billed for Scores of Phone Calls and Emails That Don’t Match GAL Hurwitz Billings).
Nusbaum also billed for thirty-two email communications with Hurwitz. However, at least sixteen of those emails appear to have gone unread, were never received or never written.
Then come the conferences. Nusbaum invoiced Riordan for five status conferences—yet three of these do not appear in the court record.
Additionally, Nusbaum charged Riordan thousands of dollars for calls and meetings with individuals who had no documented connection to her case. He logged hours with strangers and billed them to a mother in crisis.
Nusbaum billed Riordan nearly $2,000 for a hearing that occurred after he was released as her counsel.
You don’t need a law degree to do that math. This guy’s double billing. The evidence points to fraud.
From Contempt to Convict? Will Lawyer’s Motion Backfire?
Yes, Edward Nusbaum has filed a motion to hold his former client, Karen Riordan, in contempt. But allegations now surfacing may present more serious consequences for Nusbaum himself.
An attorney billed his client for phone calls never made, emails never sent, status conferences that never appear and meetings with strangers who had no connection with her case.
If substantiated, these acts may constitute larceny in the first degree under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-122, a Class B felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Further exposure includes possible charges of criminal attempt to commit larceny (§ 53a-49), perjury (§ 53a-156), and—if systemic across clients—federal RICO violations.
Nusbaum may also face professional discipline for violating Rules 1.5, 8.4(c), and 1.15 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.
His request for arbitration may see the arbitrator compelled to report what he discovers to the appropriate authorities. Nusbaum may lose his license. His freedom.
No contempt order will change that.
