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 Romano

Respondent, Benedict F. Romano, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, maintained an office within the First Judicial Department. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved for his immediate suspension based on substantial admissions of professional misconduct. Ms. A., a client, reported that respondent conducted an intimate physical examination during an initial consultation for a workers' compensation case. Respondent admitted to the examination but denied impropriety, claiming it was essential for case assessment. A Hearing Panel sustained the charge and recommended a two-year suspension. Subsequently, another client, Ms. D., accused respondent of similar misconduct, taking photographs while improperly touching her. The DDC's motion for immediate suspension was granted by the Court, finding that respondent's actions, and his inability to comprehend their impropriety, posed an immediate threat to the public interest, constituting professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (ii) and (iii).

Attorney DisciplinaryProfessional MisconductSexual MisconductSuspension of AttorneyDR 1-102 (A) (8)22 NYCRR 603.4Fitness to Practice LawUncontested EvidenceSubstantial Admission Under OathDisciplinary Committee
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07843 [192 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Matter of Hackett

Mark J. Hackett, Jr., a suspended attorney, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District. He neglected a client's workers' compensation matter, failing to advise her properly regarding CMS debt and subsequently not responding to her inquiries. Hackett also failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation and defaulted in the disciplinary proceedings. The court suspended him from the practice of law for two years, citing harm to the client and disregard for the disciplinary process.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsneglect of client matterfailure to cooperatedisciplinary actionattorney suspensionWorkers' CompensationCMS debtRules of Professional Conductdefault judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hefner v. Grievance Committee for District 1-A

Hefner appealed the dismissal of his suit to set aside a private reprimand issued by the District 1-A Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas. The trial court dismissed the suit, asserting a lack of jurisdiction because Hefner did not reside in Dallas County, as per the statute. The appellate court determined that the statutory requirement to file suit in the county of residence was a matter of venue, not jurisdiction. Due to the Grievance Committee's failure to properly challenge venue according to Rule 86 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the improper venue was waived. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for a trial on the merits of Hefner's reprimand.

VenueJurisdictionWaiverPrivate ReprimandState Bar of TexasTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTrial Court ErrorReversalRemandAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1993

Suffolk County Democratic Committee v. Gaffney

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order by the Suffolk County Supreme Court, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Suffolk County Democratic Committee and Dominick J. Baranello. The plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of Local Laws, 1993, No. 12, which reapportioned the Suffolk County Legislature. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of claims based on lack of standing for the Committee and Baranello, as well as causes of action under the Municipal Home Rule Law, Voting Rights Act, and Civil Rights Act, citing a lack of applicability or factual support. Furthermore, the denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim, despite the reapportionment plan's population deviation being constitutionally suspect.

ReapportionmentStanding DoctrineLocal Government LawConstitutional ChallengeVoting Rights LitigationCivil Rights LitigationEqual Protection ClausePreliminary Injunction DenialSuffolk County LegislatureMunicipal Home Rule
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

On February 6, 2003, 176 former Enron employees (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a court declaration that bonuses received from Enron were valid and non-avoidable. The Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (Employee Committee) responded on March 28, 2003, with a Motion to Dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The Court found the Complaint to be an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, as all potential liability had already accrued from past transactions, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or risk of increased liability. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Adversary Proceeding.

Declaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissBankruptcy CodeBankruptcy CourtEnronEmployee BonusesAvoidable TransfersJurisdictionFirst Filed RuleVenue
References
23
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Co. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) appealed a Bankruptcy Court's November 5, 1991, order that authorized LTV Steel to make payments to the J & L Hourly Pension Plan. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing based on the potential consolidation of LTV estates, a prospective claim for contribution against LTV Steel, and the effect on their cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing. The court found their asserted interests too indirect and speculative, emphasizing that a party must be directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy order to have standing for appeal.

Bankruptcy AppealStanding DoctrinePecuniary InterestCreditors' RightsPension Benefit Guaranty CorporationERISAChapter 11 BankruptcyCorporate ReorganizationJoint and Several LiabilityControlled Group
References
27
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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 587 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