Eric R. Brown

Attorney in Waterbury, CT

Eric Brown is of counsel in the law firm of Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, which has offices in Waterbury and Southbury. His law practice focuses on labor and employment and civil rights litigation; arbitration and mediations; contract negotiations; workers compensation; libel/slander and defamation litigation; and counseling of small employers in labor and employment matters. He practices in all Connecticut courts, both state and federal, and before numerous administrative agencies in Connecticut. As general counsel to the Connecticut Council of Police Unions, Eric has represented police officers in labor and employment matters throughout Connecticut for sixteen years. He routinely testifies on behalf of police officers’ interests before the Connecticut General Assembly as a lobbyist, and serves as chief spokesperson for the labor union. He has been instrumental in representing Newtown police officers and their interests in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, and has appeared in the New York Times, and on Fox-Connecticut speaking on behalf of those officers who have suffered the debilitating effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is recognized as a leader in the field of police officers’ rights in Connecticut. Eric’s undergraduate work in economics has helped him become a formidable advocate for improvements in employee compensation and retirement security, and he has developed innovative means of enhancing benefits for employees in a cost-efficient manner for employers. Eric has been writing a regular weekly column, Legal Business, in the Waterbury Republican-American since 1997 focusing on the legal pitfalls which employers and employees regularly face in the workplace. Attorney Eric Brown was born in Waterbury, Connecticut and graduated from Crosby High School. In his free time he coaches the boys varsity basketball team at St. John the Evangelist School in Watertown. He and his wife have three children.

203-437-6327
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.1 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Labor Law
  • Employment Law
  • Workers Compensation
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Practice
  • Civil Rights
  • Consumer Law
  • Contracts
  • Employee Benefits
  • Entertainment Law
  • Government
  • Government Contracts
  • Labor and Employment
  • Law Enforcement
  • Libel, Slander and Defamation
  • Municipal Law
  • Negligence
  • Occupational Safety and Health
  • Premises Liability
  • Sports Law
  • Unfair Competition

 

Peer Rating

bv

Overall Peer Rating

in Labor and Employment
4.1 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
4.0
Analytical Capabilities
4.0
Judgment
3.9
Communication Ability
4.0
Legal Experience
4.4

  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Of Counsel

Admission Details

Admitted in 1993, Connecticut

Law School Attended

University of Connecticut
Class of 1993
J.D.

University Attended

Fairfield University
Class of 1990
B.A.
cum laude

Associations & Memberships

American Bar Association (Member, Labor and Employment Section)

Representative Cases

Jamilik v. Yale University, No. 08-5818, 2nd Cir., 2009; Town of South Windsor v. South Windsor Police Union, Local 1480, 255 Conn. 800 (2000); Doreen Spiotti v. Town of Wolcott; Kevin Gray v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Correction; Deborah Gulledge v. City of Waterbury; Wendy Sousa v. City of Waterbury.

Contact Information

Phone

(203) 757-9261

Fax

(203) 756-5762

Mobile

203-676-9110

Email

Send email to Eric R. Brown

Social Networking



Office Information
Eric R. Brown
Of Counsel
 41 Church Street,
Waterbury, CT 06723

Loading...

Logo
Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C. (Waterbury, Connecticut)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.