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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01338
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Pierre

This case involves W. Marilynn Pierre, a suspended attorney, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Pierre was previously suspended in 2017 due to admissions of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds, using her escrow account as an operating account, and evading tax liens. She also converted/misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to satisfy a judgment. Now, the parties have filed a joint motion for discipline by consent, stipulating to facts that confirm violations of rules 1.15 (a), (b), (e), and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mitigating factors include her cooperation, current work as a social worker, restitution efforts, and mental health issues (bulimia, depression, ADD) affecting her practice, for which she is undergoing monitoring. The Court grants the joint motion and imposes a five-year suspension, retroactive to August 8, 2017.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsattorney disciplineescrow account misusecommingling fundsmisappropriationtax liensmental healthmitigating factorssuspension
References
8
Case No. ADJ3547384; ADJ1113447
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

JOSE BERRIOS vs. JERRYS FAMOUS DELI, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CENTRE INSURANCE

The applicant's current attorney petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order that awarded the entire $90,000 attorney's fee to the applicant's prior counsel due to the current attorney's failure to file a timely disclosure statement. The Appeals Board found that the current attorney's initial disclosure statement did not comply with Labor Code § 4906(e) and that payment is precluded for services rendered before a compliant form is filed. However, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further review of the factual and legal issues, noting that the order is not a final decision on the merits and encourages mediation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 4906Disclosure StatementCompromise and ReleaseCIGACentre InsuranceWCJReconsideration Granted
References
24
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. ADJ6551234; ADJ6553660; ADJ6551315; ADJ6551627; ADJ7427373
Regular
Sep 26, 2011

ALBERTO VASQUEZ vs. BARRY AVENUE PLATING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement because the prior attorney's lien for services was not addressed. The Board rescinded the $\$ 13,500.00$ attorney's fee award to the applicant's current attorney. The matter is returned to the trial level to schedule a hearing to determine a reasonable allocation of attorney's fees between the prior and current attorneys. The Board affirmed all other aspects of the original compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesLien ClaimantWCJAdministrative Law JudgeAllocationReasonable ValueLegal Services
References
8
Case No. ADJ1786826 (LAO0772803)
Regular
Sep 23, 2022

MICHAEL GUTIERREZ vs. ALPHA FOX TOWING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a dispute over $\$ 30,000$ in attorney's fees awarded to a former attorney. The applicant's current attorneys sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's order compelling them to pay this amount from the $\$ 180,000$ attorney fee approved in a settlement. The Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ properly allocated the fee, deeming the $\$ 30,000$ a reasonable portion of the total fee for the former counsel's services. The Board emphasized that attorney fees are subject to the Board's determination of reasonableness and that current counsel was unjustly enriched by attempting to retain the entire fee.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderattorney's feesformer counsellien claimantCompromise and ReleaseState Compensation Insurance FundOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseunjust enrichment
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,686 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