Bridgeport Superior Court has become the focal point of serious allegations against Attorney Caitlin Murphy, who represents a defendant in a high-profile domestic violence and divorce case. Despite repeated judicial notes and the plaintiff raising concerns about fraudulent court filings at least three times since September 2023, no corrective action has been taken. In a striking development, Murphy was spotted today practicing law in Milford Superior Court, underscoring Bridgeport’s failure to address her alleged misconduct, including filing fraudulent documents and neglecting her duty to protect vulnerable parties. This inaction raises pressing questions about ethical accountability and the urgent need for reform as outlined in the Project 2025 judicial mandate.
The Timeline of Alleged Misconduct
The case traces back to March 26, 2022, when the defendant, represented by Murphy of Mark Sherman Law & Associates, was accused of violently assaulting the plaintiff, breaking her ribs—a claim substantiated by urgent care records. Attorney Murphy formally filed her representation of her client in court, stating she was retained on September 9, 2022. However, evidence submitted during discovery paints a much different picture.
Financial records tied to the defendant revealed that Murphy and her co-counsel were retained shortly after the assault in March, well before the date of filing. This discrepancy directly challenges the integrity of her submissions. Court filings also expose a series of midnight phone calls between Murphy, her co-counsel Christopher DeMattie, the defendant, and his father. These calls occurred during critical incidents, including one in May 2022 when the plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted and multiple occasions where threats of harm were made against her children and the family’s young au pair.
Even more concerning, video footage captured in August 2022 shows the defendant and his father discussing strategies and lawyer engagement on the deck of their Easton home-further evidence that contradicts Murphy’s claimed representation timeline. Their conversations about legal strategies not only highlight potential collusion but also reflect the broader breakdown of accountability in legal proceedings. The Project 2025 mandate, which seeks to reform and cleanse legal systems of bad actors, speaks directly to scenarios like this, calling for decisive action to prevent such practices from festering within judicial corridors.
Ethical Breaches and Legal Implications
Murphy stands accused of not only providing false information to the court but of failing to fulfill her duty to correct these inaccuracies. Attorneys have a fundamental obligation under the Rules of Professional Conduct to act honestly and with integrity, a standard Murphy has arguably violated. By not amending the fraudulent records despite overwhelming evidence, she has directly undermined the judicial process, a cornerstone of public trust in the legal system.
Furthermore, Murphy’s actions—or lack thereof—have placed the plaintiff and her children at continued risk. Connecticut statutes, including § 46b-15, were designed to protect victims of domestic violence, mandating swift and proactive measures to ensure safety. Yet, Murphy’s reported coordination with the defendant and his wealthy family calls her commitment to justice and victim protection into question. Her alleged complicity in obstructing investigations and shielding her client paints a damning picture of misplaced priorities. If left unaddressed, these actions directly contradict the reforms outlined in the Project 2025 judicial section, which emphasizes the eradication of practices that jeopardize the rights and safety of victims.
| Misconduct by Attorney Caitlin Murphy | Details |
| 1. Filing Fraudulent Documents | The misrepresentation of the retention date in court filings constitutes a breach of honesty and integrity. This act violates the Rules of Professional Conduct and undermines the credibility of the legal profession. |
| 2. Failure to Correct the Record | Despite being aware of the inaccuracies, Attorney Murphy has not taken steps to amend the court records. This failure perpetuates the fraud and violates her duty to the court. |
| 3. Complicity in Unethical Behavior | The described phone calls and coordination with the Defendant and his father suggest potential complicity in actions that may obstruct justice or enable further harm to the Plaintiff. |
| 4. Neglect of Victim Protection | By failing to address the Defendant’s admissions of violent behavior and digital abuse, Attorney Murphy has neglected her duty to ensure the protection of vulnerable parties, as outlined in statutes like § 46b-15. |
| 5. Violation of Professional Standards | The described actions reflect a disregard for the ethical standards expected of attorneys, including honesty, diligence, and respect for the law. |
The involvement of co-counsel Christopher DeMattie, Ryan O’Neil, and their firms (Broder Orland DeMattie & Associates and Mark Sherman Law & Associates) has only deepened the controversy. These attorneys are legally and ethically responsible for addressing the misconduct within their team, a duty they appear to have neglected. The Project 2025 mandate reinforces that corruption and unethical behavior must not be tolerated, regardless of the wealth or connections of those involved, to preserve the integrity of the legal framework.
A Call for Accountability
Despite these red flags, no disciplinary action has been taken against Murphy. Her presence in Milford Superior Court today leaves many questioning how an attorney under such allegations can continue practicing law without consequence. For other legal professionals, this presents an ethical dilemma. Should they be expected to go up against a lawyer whose record appears clouded by dishonesty and misconduct?
Attorneys who face Murphy, DeMattie, or their firms in court now have a responsibility—not only to their clients but to the justice system. They are encouraged to document and report any instances of unethical behavior, using Connecticut’s legal provisions and referencing Project 2025’s call for systemic reform to hold these individuals accountable. The mandate’s framework highlights the role of legal practitioners in rejecting and actively countering corruption to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Legal Implications
|
This case, if unchecked, risks eroding public confidence in the legal profession’s ability to self-regulate. Transparency and accountability are not just abstract ideals; they are critical to the integrity of any justice system. Murphy’s alleged actions, when viewed through the lens of Project 2025’s Justice chapter, illustrate why systemic change in legal accountability is essential. Reform is not an academic exercise; it is a safeguard against repeat misconduct like that alleged in this case.
The Legal Profession on Trial
The plaintiff’s struggle reminds us that unethical practices have real-life consequences for victims who depend on the legal system for protection and justice. Lawyers like Caitlin Murphy, who allegedly prioritize client strategies over truth and integrity, tarnish the reputation of an entire profession. Yet, it is within the power of ethical attorneys, judges, and the public to demand better. By shining a light on these behaviors, in alignment with Project 2025’s judicial commitments, we affirm that no one—not lawyers, not defendants with deep pockets—is above the law.
The plaintiff, her children, and countless other victims deserve a justice system that operates free from bias and corruption. The Project 2025 mandate serves as a vital blueprint for removing bad actors from positions of influence, ensuring justice remains the foremost priority of the courts. For now, the spotlight in Bridgeport and the Fairfield Superior Court remains. The question is, will anyone take the necessary steps to ensure justice prevails?
Works Cited:
- Connecticut General Statutes
“Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-15. Relief from Physical Abuse, Stalking, or Pattern of Threatening by Family or Household Member. Application. Court Orders. Duration. Service of Application, Affidavit, Any Ex Parte Order and Notice of Hearing. Copies. Expedited Hearing for Violation of Order. Other Remedies.” 2022 Supplement. - Rules of Professional Conduct
“Rules of Professional Conduct.” CT 2024 Practice Book. Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2024. - Domestic Violence Laws
“Domestic Violence: Definitions and Legal Protections.” DomesticViolenceCT_LAW[1].pdf. Connecticut General Statutes, 2021. - Project 2025 Mandate
“Mandate for Leadership: Project 2025.” 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation, 2025.
