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

In re Burrick

The respondent, Robert Stephen Burrick, was convicted on January 13, 2003, of federal felonies including mail fraud and interstate transport of stolen property, and sentenced on April 14, 2003. The petitioner contended that these federal felonies were essentially similar to New York felonies, warranting automatic disbarment. Citing Judiciary Law § 90 and precedent, the court found that Burrick's felony conviction resulted in automatic disbarment. Consequently, the petitioner's motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys was granted, and Robert Stephen Burrick was immediately disbarred and prohibited from practicing law.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Krouner

The respondent, admitted to practice in 1973, pleaded guilty on February 20, 2003, in Supreme Court, Albany County, to three felonies: insurance fraud in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and workers’ compensation fraudulent practices. The respondent was sentenced on May 12, 2003. Due to these felony convictions, the respondent was automatically disbarred. The court granted the petitioner’s motion to formally strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, which is a formality confirming the disbarred status. The disbarment is effective immediately, and the respondent is commanded to cease and refrain from the practice of law.

DisbarmentProfessional MisconductFelony ConvictionInsurance FraudGrand LarcenyWorkers' Compensation Fraudulent PracticesAutomatic DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineStriking from Roll of AttorneysAppellate Division Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ferrandino

Respondent Anthony Ferrandino, an attorney, was convicted of offering a false instrument for filing, a class E felony, in New York County on February 2, 2005. This conviction stemmed from his involvement in bribing hospital workers to obtain personal injury lawsuit candidates and filing false retainer statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Committee on Professional Standards sought his disbarment, citing Judiciary Law § 90 (4), which mandates automatic disbarment for state felony convictions. The court granted the petition, ordering his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys, nunc pro tunc to the conviction date. The decision highlighted that sentencing is not a prerequisite for automatic disbarment.

Attorney misconductProfessional disciplineFelony convictionDisbarmentFalse instrumentBriberyPersonal injury lawsuitsRetainer statementsAutomatic disbarmentDisciplinary Committee
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04444 [151 AD3d 119]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Matter of Losier

The respondent, Picard Losier, an attorney, faced a disciplinary proceeding in Pennsylvania which led to his disbarment on consent in that state on January 3, 2013. The disciplinary board's report detailed extensive professional misconduct, including the misappropriation of $86,400 from client escrow funds belonging to Harry Howell after his death. Furthermore, Losier was found to have commingled personal and fiduciary funds for over eight years, routinely advanced funds to clients for more than a decade, and failed to maintain proper financial records for his IOLTA account for over five years. Given the egregious nature and lengthy duration of this misconduct, disbarment was deemed necessary to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the bar. Subsequently, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, found reciprocal discipline warranted and ordered Picard Losier's immediate disbarment from the practice of law in New York.

Attorney misconductReciprocal disciplineDisbarmentClient funds misappropriationCommingling fundsIOLTA account violationsProfessional ethicsPennsylvania disbarmentAppellate DivisionGrievance Committee
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rayburn v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

This opinion addresses an appeal by Robert Philip Rayburn, Sr., an attorney, from a judgment affirming his disbarment by a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility. Rayburn was accused of multiple instances of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds and failing to timely disburse settlement proceeds to clients like Lloyd Swicegood, Michael Rice, Tina L. Williams, and DeRenda K. Kirby. The Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment, ruling that the hearing panel retained jurisdiction to modify and ultimately vacate Rayburn's conditional guilty plea. Furthermore, while Rayburn was entitled to a voluntary nonsuit of his petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court, the principles of sovereign immunity prevented the application of the one-year savings statute, thereby barring any timely refiling of his appeal and leading to its dismissal. The Court found disbarment appropriate due to Rayburn's knowing misconduct, pattern of neglect, and obstruction of disciplinary proceedings.

Attorney DisciplineDisbarmentProfessional MisconductClient FundsCommingling FundsVoluntary NonsuitSovereign ImmunityAppellate ProcedureRules of Civil ProcedureRules of Professional Conduct
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04813
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Krouner

Respondent Leonard W. Krouner, disbarred in 2003 for felony convictions, sought reinstatement to the practice of law. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department opposed his motion. After a subcommittee on Character and Fitness recommended denial, the Court reviewed the application. The Court found that Krouner met the burden of demonstrating compliance with disbarment orders, possessed the requisite character and fitness, and that his reinstatement would serve the public interest. Citing character references, volunteer work, and successful mental health treatment, the Court granted his motion for reinstatement but imposed conditions, including continued mental health treatment and a prohibition on solo practice for five years.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductDisbarmentCharacter and FitnessMental Health TreatmentPro Bono ServiceConditions of ReinstatementFelony ConvictionAttorney GrievanceLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. State Bar

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of disbarment against attorney Robert L. Evans, Jr., who was found to have violated seventeen counts of professional misconduct. The misconduct arose from a dispute over an oil well lease in Reeves County, Texas, involving Fred Newman and Bill Humphris. While representing Newman, Evans secretly obtained a new lease on the disputed property for his own firm after learning of an impending court decision. He then initiated legal actions against his former client's adversary to secure his claim. The court found reversible error in the original disciplinary trial's jury selection process and, more significantly, in the admission of improper character evidence against Evans. Consequently, the judgment of disbarment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

DisbarmentProfessional MisconductLegal EthicsFiduciary DutyAttorney DisciplineAppealCharacter EvidenceHearsayDue ProcessReversible Error
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McIntyre v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Frank W. McIntyre appeals a trial court's judgment disbarring him as an attorney in Texas. The disciplinary proceeding stemmed from McIntyre's representation of Elizabeth Zedaran in a post-divorce proceeding regarding unpaid 1999 federal income taxes owed by her ex-husband, James Infinger. McIntyre received a check from the court registry to pay part of the taxes but withheld it, claiming he needed a signed tax return and Infinger's check for the balance, which led to significant penalties from the IRS. Infinger filed a grievance, and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a disciplinary petition. A jury found McIntyre violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14(b) and 3.04(d), leading to his disbarment, which this appellate court affirms.

Attorney DisbarmentProfessional MisconductLegal EthicsClient FundsThird-Party InterestsTax LiabilityDivorce Decree EnforcementTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1994

In re Friedman

Theodore H. Friedman, an attorney, faced 23 charges of professional misconduct, stemming from his representation in three personal injury cases, including Mowen v Yangming Mar. Transp. Corp. and Estate of Krieger v City of New York. A Special Referee sustained 14 charges, encompassing making false statements under oath, soliciting false testimony, failing to supervise his investigator, and fee splitting with a nonlawyer. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee petitioned for a severe sanction, while Friedman sought dismissal or censure. The First Judicial Department confirmed the sustained charges, disaffirmed the recommended two-year suspension, and ordered Friedman's disbarment, citing a pattern of intentional dishonesty and contempt for the legal process. The disbarment was effective April 22, 1994.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsFalse testimonyDisbarmentPerjuryFee splittingWitness tamperingDisciplinary rulesNew York State BarAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. 01-23-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Richard Robins v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This appeal concerns an attorney-discipline proceeding in which attorney Richard Andert Robins was disbarred after a jury found him guilty of professional misconduct. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline accused Robins of violating multiple Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically for failing to surrender client files, filing frivolous cases, causing unreasonable delay, withholding facts from the tribunal to assist fraud, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Robins challenged the disbarment on various procedural and evidentiary grounds, including the dismissal of his religious discrimination counterclaim. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of professional misconduct and rejecting Robins's other arguments regarding juror misconduct and constitutional challenges.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductDisbarmentLegal EthicsFrivolous LitigationClient File RetentionCandor Toward TribunalDishonestyFraudMisrepresentation
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 27 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