CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gardner v. Jacon

Plaintiff, an injured dock worker, sued attorneys Eric P. Von Wiegen, John Powers, and Robert M. Jacon for legal malpractice. The plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to timely prosecute his maritime claim, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants Von Wiegen and Powers moved for summary judgment, arguing no attorney-client relationship existed. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding disputed issues of fact concerning their role and representation. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that evidence suggested an attorney-client relationship may have existed and that questions of fact remained regarding the attorneys' alleged negligence and faulty legal research.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary JudgmentNegligenceStatute of LimitationsAppellate PracticeWorkers' CompensationMaritime LawProfessional ResponsibilityFactual Issues
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ3507926 (MON 0335218)
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

Douglas Maida vs. GEP Entertainment Services, AIG Claim Services, Inc.

The applicant's attorney sought to withdraw from representation due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, primarily stemming from the applicant's frustration over a credit issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying withdrawal was not a final order. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and allowed the attorney's withdrawal. The case is returned to the Presiding Judge to address the unresolved credit issue, potentially through a settlement conference with the applicant appearing in pro per.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJWithdrawal of AttorneyCumulative TraumaStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityCreditThird Party Case
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07376
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

DeCastro v. Capone

Nonparty Michael Gillin appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied his motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The underlying case is a medical malpractice action initiated by Manuel DeCastro against David Capone and others, related to treatment at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital. Gillin, as Director of Information Services at the hospital, provided an affidavit regarding electronic medical records in a related Court of Claims action. The defendants then served a subpoena duces tecum on Gillin for emails related to his affidavit, which Gillin sought to quash, asserting attorney-client privilege with the Office of the Attorney General. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Gillin failed to establish an attorney-client relationship, partly because his employment agreement with StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC, stated he was not considered a SUNY employee for most purposes, thereby not establishing a relationship with the OAG representing SUNY.

Medical MalpracticeJudicial EstoppelAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEmployer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Information ServicesElectronic Medical RecordsAffidavitCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. SFO 0471491
Regular
May 17, 2008

Leonard Desmuke vs. Marine Terminals Corp., Majestic Insurance Company

The Appeals Board granted removal, reversing the WCJ's denial of attorney Grimes' petition to be relieved as counsel. The Board found that Grimes had established sufficient cause due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, stemming from the applicant's withdrawal from a settlement and ongoing disputes, despite the applicant's objections. The Board emphasized that the applicant's alleged unwarranted claim or discovery issues could not be substantiated without violating ethical duties of confidentiality.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Be Relieved as CounselAttorney-Client Relationship BreakdownUnwarranted ClaimEthical Duty of ConfidentialityAttorney of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceIn Camera Hearing
References
0
Case No. 2021-03335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2024

Matter of Smallman

This disciplinary proceeding addresses attorney Philip J. Smallman's professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with his client, CL. CL was a vulnerable survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking, a fact known to Smallman. The attorney engaged in a series of inappropriate sexual text messages and ultimately physical contact with CL in his office while representing her in a criminal matter. The court found that Smallman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) by employing coercion or undue influence. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report, which sustained both charges, was granted, and Smallman was suspended from practicing law for five years.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsDisciplinary actionAttorney suspensionSexual relations with clientVulnerable clientFiduciary dutySex trafficking survivorRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Second Department
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,347 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational