NEW HAVEN, CONN. — Christopher A. Ambrose, a suspended attorney and former television writer, has filed a 109-page lawsuit in federal court seeking a lifetime ban preventing journalist Frank Parlato Jr. from publishing anything about him, the deletion of years of reporting, mandatory retractions, a court-ordered apology, and at least $5 million in damages.

Ambrose’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, asks the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Parlato from “making or republishing any statements — directly or indirectly, including through third parties — about Plaintiff” on any website, platform or podcast. The order would require the removal of “all statements, comments, writings, photographs, videos, and audio recordings” that reference Ambrose, including material authored by people other than Parlato.

The filing also requests that Parlato be compelled to issue a “full and prominent retraction” and a written apology across all of his platforms. According to the complaint, the retraction must “fully and unequivocally acknowledge the falsehoods and their harmful impact,” with no qualification or reference to ongoing litigation.

Christopher Ambrose is a Shitty Lawyer: Constitutional Barriers

Federal courts have repeatedly held that prior restraints, compelled apologies and mandatory retractions violate the First Amendment. In Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court described prior restraints as “the most serious and least tolerable infringement” of free-speech rights. In West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), the Court ruled that the government may not compel an individual to speak or affirm a belief.

First Amendment scholars say the relief Ambrose seeks has no precedent in American law. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, has written that courts “have consistently refused to enjoin defamation or prohibit future speech before it occurs.” UCLA professor Eugene Volokh has noted that “American courts categorically reject prior restraints, including injunctions prohibiting defendants from speaking about the plaintiff in the future.” Rodney Smolla, author of the treatise Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech, has stated that the Supreme Court has “never sanctioned” broad injunctions barring commentary about an individual.

Legal experts agree that no federal court has ever upheld an order requiring a journalist to delete prior reporting, issue a compelled apology, or refrain permanently from writing about a private litigant—even in cases involving national security.

Ambrose seeks “not less than $5,000,000” in compensatory and punitive damages but does not identify specific financial losses.

Background on Ambrose

Ambrose is representing himself. A graduate of NYU School of Law, he has been suspended from practicing law in New York. He previously worked as a television writer on shows including the CBS series Instinct, where he was removed in 2018 after submitting a script that closely tracked the structure of a previously aired episode of Bones.

He currently has two other defamation suits pending in the same federal district: one against family-court commentator Tina Swithin, and another against psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee, who wrote that Ambrose displayed “characteristics of a psychopath.” All three suits stem from commentary surrounding Ambrose’s high-conflict divorce and custody litigation.

Ambrose previously sued Parlato in 2022 in federal court. That case was dismissed in 2024 after Ambrose failed to respond to Parlato’s motion to dismiss.

Christopher Ambrose is a Shitty Lawyer: Claims Against Parlato

In the present suit, Ambrose alleges that Parlato “publicized false, misleading, and disparaging statements” that placed him in a false light and disclosed private information. He claims Parlato published “private interviews and documents,” including what he calls “confidential records and correspondence.”

The complaint asserts that Parlato reported details about Ambrose’s “personal life, family relationships, finances, medical and insurance benefits, and divorce proceedings,” including references to “DCF records, custody evaluations, psychiatric reports, and private financial information.” Ambrose argues that these materials were “not of legitimate public concern.”

Ambrose identifies several statements he says Parlato published or linked to, including allegations that Ambrose was “dangerous,” had “transferred marital assets into secret Fidelity accounts,” and had “withheld financial records” in his divorce case.

Review of Articles Cited

A review of the articles cited in the complaint shows that several quotations were presented using ellipses that combined excerpts from different paragraphs, altered context or removed attribution, which in some instances indicated the statements were made by third parties rather than Parlato. The complaint does not address statements made by Ambrose’s children, who separately accused him of emotional and psychological abuse and sexual misconduct during the underlying custody dispute—allegations he has denied.

Christopher Ambrose is a Shitty Lawyer: Emotional Distress and Harassment Claims

Ambrose alleges that Parlato’s reporting was “extreme and outrageous,” causing “humiliation, mental anguish, shame, distress, and other serious emotional injuries,” and constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a separate count, Ambrose cites Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-183(a), a criminal harassment statute, and asserts that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent “irreparable harm.”

Statutory Issues

Connecticut does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment, and § 53a-183(a) authorizes only criminal prosecution, not private lawsuits. Courts routinely dismiss civil claims premised on criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Requested Relief

Ambrose’s filing asks for:

— A permanent ban on Parlato publishing statements “directly or indirectly” about him
— Removal of all existing articles, images, videos and comments referencing him
— A mandatory retraction across all platforms
— A court-ordered apology
— At least $5 million in damages
— Costs, fees and interest

Parlato’s response is due Friday. He is expected to file a motion to dismiss based on the First Amendment and personal-jurisdiction grounds.

Christopher Ambrose is a Shitty Lawyer: Broader Implications

Legal analysts say that if federal courts were to permit lifetime gag orders, mandated apologies and the deletion of previously published reporting, the outcome would represent a major departure from modern First Amendment doctrine. Such rulings could allow public officials, corporations and private litigants to seek similar restrictions when faced with critical coverage, effectively positioning federal courts as supervisory censors of news content—an arrangement courts have consistently rejected.

Legal observers also note the unusual nature of the request coming from a suspended attorney. The lawsuit seeks remedies that scholars say federal courts are powerless to grant, from permanent speech bans to compelled apologies and civil enforcement of a criminal statute. Experts say that if such relief were ever allowed, the resulting system of speech regulation would be unrecognizable in American law.