Let's start with the number that ought to be in the first line of this story, because it isn't. Seventy-five dollars.

That's the annual Client Security Fund fee every Connecticut lawyer pays. Miss it, and you get an administrative suspension. Pay what's owed, plus a $75 reinstatement fee, and you're back. The Judicial Branch's own attorney look-up says it plainly: an administrative suspension is "not considered discipline," and the lawyer can practice again when the overdue fee is paid.

Keep that in your pocket, because Courant columnist Kevin Rennie spent Saturday morning telling you John Bolton, the Republican running for attorney general, "has been suspended from the practice of law six times." The headline says it's "Not a good look."

Okay. Let's look.

Here's what Rennie reports. Five of the six suspensions were for missing that $75 fee. The sixth, last December, was for not filing the annual registration form with the Judicial Branch. Bolton told Rennie, in an email, that "none of the six arose from a client matter or a complaint, and none was disciplinary." He added, "I'm not going to make excuses." He said the first five came in years when he'd stepped back from his Connecticut practice while working in media and then as general counsel for an upstate New York company. On the last one, he says he was battling norovirus and pneumonia when he found out, and moved to fix it immediately.

Now. Is six in eighteen years sloppy? Sure. Rennie makes a fair point that after the first one in 2007, a lawyer ought to remember the fee. I'd say that on air and I'm saying it here. A man who wants to be the state's chief civil lawyer should be able to mail a check on time.

But look at how the column is built, because that's the Rundown.

First, the lede. Rennie writes that Bolton was suspended six times "between 2017 and 2025." Then, in the very next paragraph, he lists the years for five of them: 2007, 2009, 2011, 2015 and 2017. That's not 2017 to 2025. That's 2007 to 2025. The opening sentence of a column about carelessness with dates has the dates wrong. The detail is in the column, so a reader who gets that far can sort it out. The reader who stops at the lede can't.

Second, the weight. A fee lapse gets the headline and the top of the column. The incumbent, William Tong, gets the back half. And what's in the back half? By Rennie's own words, "a calamitous defeat." In July, Tong joined 11 other attorneys general to block Paramount's $81 billion purchase of Warner Bros., calling it a threat to competition and jobs. Two months later the attorneys general settled. Rennie writes that the dozen "surrendered," and calls it Tong's "humiliation." Tong himself admitted he couldn't convince his fellow attorneys general to keep going.

Credit where it's due. Rennie didn't pull that punch. He also notes that Tong wanted "more big brain lawyers" six years into the job, and that the state is sending a Washington private lawyer, Elizabeth Prelogar, to argue a gun case before the Supreme Court. Those are real questions about how the office is run, and they're about the man who actually holds the job right now.

So why is the $75 fee the headline and not the lawsuit Tong lost?

Third, the swipe with no source. Rennie writes that "a Republican running for attorney general is unlikely to object" to the merger. Did he ask Bolton? The column doesn't say he did. Bolton gets quoted on his suspensions. On the merger, he gets a guess.

One more thing I'll note, and I'll note it straight. Rennie also reports that the State Elections Enforcement Commission voted Wednesday to open an investigation into Republican treasurer candidate Fred Wilms's campaign, which didn't report more than $100,000 in consulting expenses for over a year. That's a legitimate story, and it was fair game for a column. I'm not telling you any Republican gets a pass. I'm telling you the pattern: the column goes hard on the challenger's paperwork and treats the incumbent's record as a back-half item.

And Rennie himself says the quiet part. No Republican has won the AG's office in more than 70 years. He says elected officials "should have their records tested by opponents." I agree. So test them. Test both. Put the lost lawsuit and the lost leverage up front, next to the late fees, and let voters weigh them.

Here's my take, folks. Bolton owes voters a straight answer, and he started with one. Tong owes them one on Paramount and Warner Bros. The difference is that one of them got a headline, and the other got the back half.

Late fees lead the column. Tong's record comes second. You can decide which one actually costs you something.

Source: Kevin Rennie, "About those 'administrative suspensions' of a CT lawyer. Not a good look.," Hartford Courant, Oct. 24, 2026. Judicial Branch definition of administrative suspension: jud.ct.gov Attorney/Firm Look-up.