John R Williams

John R Williams

2.3
Rating: 4.9

Licensed for 58 years

Criminal defense Lawyer at New Haven, CT
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Civil Rights, Appeals, Employment & Labor

51 Elm St Ste 409, New Haven, CT

This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2019
See Details

About John

Biography

Fees and Rates

Cost

Hourly Rates

$ 500-600 per hour


Payment Methods

  • Cash
  • Check
  • Credit Card

Looking for an attorney? Avvo can help.

search module image

Search our directory

Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.

chat module image

Avvo's live chat agents can help coordinate a consultation with a local attorney.

Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.

Chat with

Licenses

Licensed in Connecticut for 58 years

State: Connecticut

Acquired: 1968

Active

Lawyer disciplined by state licensing authority in 2019

Location

John R Williams and Associates, LLC

51 Elm St Ste 409, New Haven, CT, 06510-2049

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

John R Williams's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

2.3 /5.0

12 Client Reviews

Filter Avvo Reviews (12) Refine reviews to match your needs. Use the filters to quickly surface reviews that align with your case or priorities.

Showing 1 - 5 of 8 reviews | Advocacy

Posted by Tom | February 17, 2026 | Hired Attorney | Lawsuits & Disputes

Incompetent Lawyer, gave away my judgement.

At one time Atty Williams may have been a great lawyer. He is NOT one now. He failed to file documents, I had Judgement in my favor and he allowed the Defense Atty to file and bring a closed case back to court. His response to the Judge who literally said she was scratching her head on why he woul...d agree to reopen the case and have it go to trial, was "my bad". Well his bad cost me over $100k in damages. At trial he didn't submit evidence about my damages. Never called the defendant to the stand. Many other issues. The absolute worst representation or more like lack of. Should not be licensed anymore.

Posted by anonymous | May 14, 2024 | Hired Attorney | Lawsuits & Disputes

Incompetent Attorney

John is very sly, will tell you everything you want to hear and will say he hasn’t lost a case. This man took my case and literally did nothing. He may be too old to perform, forgets many things or he just doesn’t care either way it thievery, an injustice to all.

Posted by Gary | March 19, 2021 | Hired Attorney | Employment & Labor

Ripped me off for $5000

John Williams asked for a $5000 retainer after telling me that I had an open and shut case. I paid him. He did nothing. His excuses were endless. I lost my job, my health and health insurance, my house and all its contents. He is a thief.

Posted by anonymous | March 02, 2020 | Hired Attorney | Lawsuits & Disputes

Not a Good Attorney Bordering on Sleasy

During my case he appeared to be very distracted. Did not know the facts and did not offer my any pre-trial preparation. Also gave me wrong advise on the law. I can not recommend him in the least.

Posted by Mark | August 15, 2019 | Hired Attorney | Litigation

Disassociated Team, No attention to detail.

I hired Williams with a $5,000 retainer. The initial attempt in J R Williams filing of my complaint was totally in error and inconsistent with the 5-1/2 page complaint of facts that he was given. I was able to intervene and stop the filing, directing the firm to the facts that were already presente...d to them and that I had discussed with John in his office before rendering payment. There was another attorney that I had consulted earlier that had done some preliminary work on my case with discovery. Her work was impressive in my opinion, but she felt she lacked the financial resources to proceed. Maybe the funds presented to J R Williams would have been better spent with her efforts. Going into the deposition process, long after I had completed a 33 page interrogatory, I noted that the opposing party was not making any reference to the material that I presented during the interrogatory filings. Half way through the deposition, I asked John's associate if the opposing party had possession of the interrogatory. He said that apparently not and that he would look into it. In that moment I began to understand that none of my interrogatory would be allowed, because the time of discovery had long closed. I presented the material in a timely fashion, it was just not passed onto the opposing party. After my being deposed, I asked the William's associate, when the defendants would be deposed. I was told that they would not be deposed, with the comment that, "We don't show our hand." Hmm.....don't fill your hand, don't show your hand sounded like a peculiar position to me. J R continually assured me that there would be no position of the defendants to win on summary judgement. One day I got an email, with the subject, "Bad News." My case was lost in summary judgement. I requested that J R send me his firm's response to the defendant's request for summary judgement. As the defendants were never deposed and my interrogatory was not transferred to the opposing party during discovery, there was miserable little for a proper and diligent response. Whoever wrote the response for J R's firm was not at all skilled, and I wondered if an 8th grader could have presented a better response. In my opinion, a better heading for, "J R Williams and Associates," would be J R Williams and the Disassociated." Don't believe the hype of days gone by or get taken in my what seems to present a well managed law firm. Perhaps those days are passed?

See All Client Reviews

John R Williams's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse John

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't received any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

Experience

Rating:  4.9 (Concern)

Professional misconduct

This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2019.

Reprimand issued in CT, 2019

updated on 08/19/2019

A reprimand is an order from the Statewide Grievance Committee after it has found that an attorney has engaged in ethical misconduct. If an attorney receives more than 3 reprimands in 5 years, a presentment must be filed against the attorney so the Superior Court can decide if more serious discipline should be ordered.

Suspension issued in CT, 2017

updated on 11/28/2017

This means the attorney lost his or her license to practice law for a period of time. The attorney typically returns to practicing law when the suspension expires.

Honors

2018

AV Rated, Martindale-Hubbell

Work Experience

1980 - 1990

Adjunct Faculty, Yale Law School

Associations

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Life Member

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

Founding Member

1997 - 1998

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

Chair, Civil Rights Section

Sample of Legal Cases

Drimal v. Tai, 786 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2015)

Suit for unlawful wiretapping by FBI agents remanded for trial.

Sousa v. Roque, 578 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2009)

Plaintiff prevailed.

Bhatia v. Debek, 287 Conn. 397, 948 A.2d 1009 (2008)

Plaintiff prevailed.

Lopes v. Farmer, 286 Conn. 384, 944 A.2d 921 (2008)

Plaintiff prevailed.

Doe ex rel. A.N. v. East Haven Board of Education, 430 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Conn.), aff'd 200 Fed. Appx. 46 (2d Cir. 2006)

Plaintiff prevailed.

DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588, 821 A.2d 744 (2003)

Plaintiff prevailed

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002)

Second Circuit ruling reversed

Zavatsky v. Anderson, 130 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Conn. 2001)

Plaintiff prevailed.

State v. DeAngelo, 2000 WL 973104 (Conn. Super. 2000)

Defendant acquitted on grounds of ingestion of prescription medication.

Bell v. Board of Education, 55 Conn. App. 400, 739 A.2d 321 (1999)

Plaintiffs prevailed.1

Drumm v. Brown, 245 Conn. 657, 716 A.2d 50 (1998)

Plaintiff prevailed.

Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582, 674 A.2d 1290 (1996)

Plaintiff prevailed.

DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 597 A.2d 807 (1991)

Plaintiff prevailed.

Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1991)

Plaintiff prevailed

Dobosz v. Walsh, 892 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1989)

Substantial damages award to plaintiff affirmed.

Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312 (2d Cir. 1988)

Prisoner released from custody.

Haskins v. Manson, 791 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1986)

Conviction vacated.

Gagnon v. Ball, 696 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1982)

Plaintiff prevailed

See More Legal Cases

Education

1967

Georgetown University Law Center

JD - Juris Doctor

1963

Harvard College

A.B.

Publications

2003

Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Beyone Police Misconduct and False Arrest: Expanding the Scope of 42 USC 1983 Litigation

1996

Convicting the Innocent The Ben Miller Frame-Up

1988

Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees A Practitioner's Guide to Representing Plaintiffs in Section 1983 Litigation

1968

Languages

English

Spanish

Activity

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline
    This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2019
    Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
10.0 - 9.0 Superb8.9 - 8.0 Excellent7.9 - 7.0 Very Good6.9 - 6.0 Good5.9 - 5.0 Average4.9 - 4.0 Concern3.9 - 3.0 Caution2.9 - 2.0 Strong Caution1.9 - 1.0 Extreme Caution