The complainant, M, an attorney who sought reinstatement to the Connecticut
bar, filed a complaint with the defendant administrative agency, the Com-
mission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the plaintiff,
the Connecticut Judicial Branch, which administers the attorney discipline
and licensing process, had discriminated or retaliated against her in the
proceedings involving her reinstatement. The commission’s human rights
referee denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss M’s complaint, and, pursuant
to statute (§§ 4-183 and 46a-94a (a)), the plaintiff filed in the trial court an
interlocutory administrative appeal from that ruling, asserting, inter alia,
that the separation of powers doctrine afforded the plaintiff immunity from
suit. The trial court rendered judgment sustaining the plaintiff’s adminis-
trative appeal and remanded the case to the commission with direction to
dismiss M’s complaint, reasoning that the commission’s assertion of jurisdic-
tion over the plaintiff’s decisions regarding M’s reinstatement violated the
separation of powers doctrine because it was within the exclusive authority
of the Judicial Branch to regulate attorneys and to admit attorneys to the
practice of law. Thereafter, the commission appealed from the trial court’s
judgment sustaining the plaintiff’s administrative appeal, claiming that the
trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s interlocu-
tory administrative appeal and that the court incorrectly concluded that
the separation of powers doctrine barred the commission from exercising
jurisdiction over M’s complaint. Held: