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

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Wyser-Pratte

Petitioners, Prudential Securities and Prudential Insurance, sought to disqualify the law firm Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel from representing respondent Guy P. Wyser-Pratte in arbitration proceedings. Wyser-Pratte, a former employee of Prudential Securities, had initiated arbitration alleging various claims including breach of contract and tortious interference by Prudential Insurance. Petitioners argued a conflict of interest due to Kramer's prior representation of Prudential entities in related employment and bankruptcy matters, claiming access to confidential information. The initial court granted the disqualification, finding a substantial relationship between the matters. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that petitioners failed to demonstrate a substantial relationship between the arbitration claims and Kramer's prior representations, and noted the delay in seeking disqualification.

Disqualification of CounselConflict of InterestAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstantial Relationship TestConfidential InformationArbitration ProceedingsWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractEmployment LawAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. LAO 0726907
Regular
May 29, 2007

HABTNESH EZRA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

Applicant's counsel, Martin Reiner, is denied disqualification of the Appeals Board and ordered to pay $\$ 2,500$ in sanctions. The Board found Reiner's written comments to be intentionally disruptive and without merit, and his response did not provide good cause to avoid sanctions or grounds for disqualification. The sanctions imposed do not impact the applicant's right to representation or a hearing on the merits of her case.

DisqualificationSanctionsApplicant's CounselWillful IntentDelay ProceedingsImproper MotiveWithout MeritWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Case No. ADJ7624426; ADJ8657421
Regular
Jun 18, 2013

NATHALIE AMEZQUITA vs. SCOTT ZIEHL an Individual, Co-Partner dba JEWELRY, Liquidation USA

The applicant petitioned for disqualification of WCJ Richard Shapiro, alleging enmity and prejudgment. The applicant's counsel stated the WCJ declared the applicant would "take nothing" and was "a liar" before trial. The WCJ did not deny these statements, suggesting they were to facilitate settlement and noting concerns about applicant's attorney's tactics. The Appeals Board granted the disqualification petition, finding the WCJ's statements demonstrated bias or the appearance of bias, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeenmityformed opinionprejudicedtake nothingliarinformal resolutionappearance of biasreassignment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. ADJ8070046, ADJ10519001
Regular
Jun 11, 2018

LASHAWN WILLIAMS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involved sanctions imposed on applicant's attorney for verbally abusing opposing counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, reducing the sanctions from $750 to $500 because the WCJ improperly cited prior misconduct not included in the notice. The WCAB affirmed the award of $193.75 in costs, finding it reasonable for defense counsel's time spent addressing the incident. The attorney's petition for disqualification of the WCJ was denied, as the allegations were untimely, unsubstantiated, and based on general adverse rulings rather than actual bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsReconsiderationDisqualificationWCJApplicant's CounselDefense CounselMandatory Settlement ConferenceVerbal AbuseCosts
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferrara v. Jordache Enterprises Inc.

This case involves a conflict of interest arising from the dual representation of a school bus driver, Christine Ferrara, and a matron, Angela Garguilo, by the same law firm after a collision between their bus and a car. Defendants HVT, Inc., Jordache Enterprises, Inc., and Deborah and Ralph Nakash moved and cross-moved for the disqualification of the firm, citing disciplinary rules against representing a driver and passenger jointly due to potential counterclaims and conflicts. The court found that such dual representation constitutes a clear conflict, especially given that counterclaims against the driver were indeed asserted. The plaintiffs' counsel's arguments regarding co-employee status and sole liability of the defendant were deemed unavailing without proper motions. The court granted the disqualification, relieving counsel from representing both plaintiffs and imposing a 60-day stay for them to secure new counsel, while denying other pending motions with leave to renew.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationDual RepresentationDisciplinary RulesDriver-Passenger ConflictLegal EthicsWorkers' Compensation Law implicationsFiduciary ObligationsClient ConfidentialitySummary Judgment
References
6
Case No. ADJ12674446
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

MICHAEL KREZA, SHANNA KREZA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

Applicant Shanna Kreza, guardian ad Litem for deceased Michael Kreza, sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) after the WCJ issued an Order Suspending Action. The WCJ's order questioned the requested attorney's fees as excessive, which the applicant argued created an appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petitions for removal and disqualification, finding an appearance of bias by the WCJ due to unqualified opinions on attorney's fees. Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterDeath ClaimAttorney FeesExcessive FeesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasOrder Suspending Action
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,730 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