Suspended NYU-trained attorney Christopher Ambrose misuses Connecticut federal courts with frivolous filings to harass a psychiatrist and a journalist, twisting facts in rambling pro se complaints.
By Richard Luthmann
From Hollywood Disgrace to Family Court Scheme
Christopher Ambrose, an NYU-trained lawyer and former TV writer, saw his career collapse after a 2018 plagiarism scandal. Fired from Hollywood, he returned to Connecticut and promptly filed for divorce from his wife, Karen Riordan. Before doing so, Ambrose locked Riordan out of their bank accounts and seized her inheritance – a fact he later admitted in court.
Despite their three children’s pleas to stay with their mother, family court judges handed Ambrose sole custody of the kids and control of over $2 million in assets. He achieved this by funding a custody evaluator and guardian ad litem who backed his claim that Riordan was “alienating” the children.
The children, then 13, 13, and 9, were yanked from their home and placed with Ambrose – to the children’s terror. This outcome made Ambrose a symbol of family court corruption.
Observers note he used legal processes and money to flip the narrative and cast himself as the victim, a tactic common in coercive control cases. His manipulation of the courts to upend his family’s life set the stage for a broader legal rampage against anyone who challenged him.
Baseless Lawsuits and Rambling Complaints
Ambrose has spent recent years turning Connecticut’s courts into weapons against his perceived enemies. The disbarred attorney (suspended from practice in 2006) has sued his ex-wife, a family friend, and journalist Frank Parlato for exposing his misconduct.
In late 2022, Ambrose filed a defamation suit against Parlato and his outlet, Frank Report. The 33-page complaint was a “rambling mishmash” that twisted facts and hurled wild accusations. Ambrose baldly claimed that Frank Report’s coverage – “at least 48 articles” about him – showed “a sinister or corrupt motive to injure [Ambrose].”
Yet in Ambrosian fashion, he offered no evidence for this charge.
He alleged the reporting defamed him, invaded his privacy, and caused him extreme emotional distress. At one point, Ambrose even blamed Parlato’s articles for making him suicidal, apparently hoping for sympathy while insisting the stories were false.
No court has validated these claims. Ever. Parlato removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, citing its many legal defects. A judge noted that Ambrose’s filing was big on bluster but devoid of facts showing actual malice, as required in a defamation case.
Ambrose’s misuse of the courts went beyond lawsuits: in one family court motion, he tried to gag his ex-wife and even blame Frank Report for his children’s distress – a ploy swiftly rejected by the judge.
These episodes cemented Ambrose’s reputation as a vexatious litigant who weaponizes any venue available.
Targeting a Psychiatrist Who Labeled Him Psychopathic
In March 2025, Ambrose launched another legal attack – this time against Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a Yale-trained forensic psychiatrist, internationally recognized for her work on violence prevention.
Dr. Lee had publicly raised alarms about Ambrose’s behavior after serving as an expert in his custody case.
In a 2023 evaluation, she applied the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and found Ambrose scored 32 out of 40 – above the threshold for “full-blown psychopathy.” Lee’s report, based on interviews and court records, also identified Ambrose’s children as victims of sexual and emotional abuse under his care.
Ambrose responded by suing Dr. Lee for defamation, claiming her writings about him ruined his employment prospects. He filed the federal complaint pro se and even pleaded poverty, seeking a waiver of the $405 filing fee.
Judge Sarala Nagala granted him in forma pauperis status but refused Ambrose’s bid to seal his financial affidavit. Ambrose argued that public access to his finances would “exacerbate the humiliation and harm” he attributes to Dr. Lee.
Judge Nagala disagreed, ruling that documents submitted to influence the court are subject to a presumption of public access. “Embarrassment” alone, she wrote, is not sufficient to justify secrecy. By denying the seal, the judge ensured Ambrose’s sworn statements – and their accuracy – remain open to scrutiny.
Earlier this week, Frank Parlato used public records to expose Ambose’s new pattern of lies in his in forma pauperis petition. Ambrose claimed $2,450 rent on a $2.2 million Madison, Connecticut, beach house, actually leased at $3,750, listed adult children as dependents who had already left home or school, undervalued his Audi, hid Fidelity accounts and retirement withdrawals, and omitted an $800,000 inheritance fight.
Ambrose even told the court he “just learned” he was eligible for SNAP, though he’d been receiving benefits since 2024. His perjury risk now overshadows his lawsuits.
Yes. You read that right, lawsuits (plural).
A glutton for punishment, Ambrose has once again sued Frank Parlato, this time filing a “rambling stream of consciousness” 87-page complaint in the New Haven, Connecticut, federal court. It was also assigned to Judge Nagala.
We asked Parlato for his thoughts. He gave the most Alpha response we’ve heard in a long time.
“The lion does not turn around when the small dog barks,” he said, confirming that he had not been served with Ambrose’s latest “legal fiction.”
The defamation cases are underway, and the pleadings speak for themselves. Psychiatrist Lee and newsman Parlato need do very little to highlight suspended lawyer Ambrose’s lack of factual basis in bringing his latest claims. Ambrose embarrasses himself all on his own.
The consensus is that it portrays yet another attempt by Ambrose to harass and intimidate critics.
Will the Courts Rein in Ambrose’s Abuse?
Ambrose’s actions reveal a disturbing pattern of legal harassment spanning multiple years. He has weaponized court filings to bully opponents, relying on his legal background to file facially baseless complaints that nonetheless consume public resources.
As a suspended lawyer, Ambrose exploits the leeway given to self-represented litigants while flouting basic legal standards. His filings are rife with grandiose allegations – casting himself as victim and others as conspirators – but they consistently lack supporting evidence.
Critics describe Ambrose’s approach as textbook DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics. He denies his own wrongdoing, aggressively attacks those who speak against him, and inverts reality by claiming to be the one harmed.
Now, with two federal lawsuits before Judge Nagala, questions loom about how long this abuse of the courts will continue before judicial patience wears thin.
Legal experts note that courts can sanction or dismiss frivolous lawsuits when a litigant’s pattern becomes clear.
Why has Christopher Ambrose been allowed to run the table in Connecticut’s courts for years? Any ordinary litigant pulling his stunts—plagiarized scripts, fraudulent affidavits, rambling pro se lawsuits—would have been sanctioned into bankruptcy, particularly when he has an NYU Law sheepskin hanging on his wall.
Yet Ambrose not only skates free, he thrives in a system (in the state courts at least) that apparently bends over backwards to protect him. Is it just incompetence, or something more sinister?
The whispers grow louder: judges in the “Blue Blood” network covering for one of their own, guardians ad litem and custody evaluators pocketing fat checks to flip kids like poker chips, and a state judiciary terrified that exposing Ambrose will expose the bigger racket—a family court system greased by favoritism, cronyism, blackmail, and whatever could be bigger.
When the same courts that stripped three children from their mother now entertain Ambrose’s vendetta suits against a psychiatrist and a journalist, you have to ask: Is this just one psychopath gaming the system, or is the mask slipping on a deeper Connecticut cover-up?
As Ambrose’s “rambling” crusade wears on, many are watching to see if Judge Nagala will finally put a stop to his courtroom abuse. The coming decisions will determine whether Christopher Ambrose’s vexatious legal campaign is permitted to continue.
Will the Connecticut federal courts hold the serial victimizer to account?
