II
The commission next claims that the trial court incor-
rectly concluded that the commission’s exercise of
jurisdiction over the Judicial Branch would violate the
separation of powers doctrine because attorney regula-
tion is not a matter exclusively within the authority of the
Judicial Branch, and because the commission’s exercise of
jurisdiction would not interfere with the orderly conduct
of the essential functions of the Judicial Branch. We hold
that, under the present circumstances, it would violate
the separation of powers doctrine for the commission to
exercise jurisdiction over a complaint alleging discrimi-
nation and retaliation in the Judicial Branch’s regulation
of the legal profession. To hold otherwise would imper-
missibly interfere, and has already interfered, with the
orderly conduct of the essential functions of the Judicial
Branch by subjecting it to agency review of its internal
proceedings in connection with its regulation of the
practice of law. Because it is the commission’s exercise
of jurisdiction that violates the separation of powers
doctrine in this case, the Judicial Branch possesses an
immunity from suit in that administrative forum. The
trial court therefore correctly determined that the com-
mission was required to dismiss the retaliation complaint
against the Judicial Branch.7
The separation of powers doctrine arises from the
fundamental mandate structuring this state’s system of
7
We acknowledge that the Judicial Branch presents several non-
constitutional arguments, including the claim that judicial or quasi-
judicial immunity applies, as alternative grounds on which to affirm
the judgment of the trial court. Although we ordinarily do not reach
constitutional questions unless it is necessary to do so, “the principle
underlying the avoidance of constitutional questions in such cases is
judicial economy and convenience. . . . Because this principle is for the
benefit of the reviewing court, the court is free to disregard it when
appropriate.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410,
418 n.6, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922, 137 S. Ct.
2263, 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017). In the present case, we begin with the
separation of powers issue because the trial court, in disposing of the
administrative appeal, addressed that question to the exclusion of the
Judicial Branch’s alternative arguments. Under these circumstances,
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings