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
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
Case No. 12-CV-7527 (JMF)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

This civil fraud case, brought by the United States against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Kurt Lofrano, addresses a novel issue in the Second Circuit: whether an employee can assert an advice-of-counsel defense by disclosing privileged communications when the employer holds the privilege and refuses to waive it. Defendant Kurt Lofrano sought to use advice from Wells Fargo's counsel as a complete defense against claims under the False Claims Act and FIRREA. Wells Fargo, however, moved for a protective order to prevent the disclosure of its attorney-client privileged communications. The Court, citing Supreme Court precedent in Swidler & Berlin, concluded that a balancing test between the importance of evidence and the attorney-client privilege is not applicable in civil cases. Consequently, the Court granted Wells Fargo's motion for a protective order, precluding Lofrano from asserting the advice-of-counsel defense using the Bank's privileged information.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeAdvice of Counsel DefenseCorporate PrivilegeEmployee Privilege WaiverProtective OrderCivil FraudFalse Claims ActFIRREAImplied WaiverEvidentiary Rules
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Argudin

This opinion addresses a legal issue raised during a jury trial where the defendant was accused of third-degree assault and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The defense demanded that the prosecution produce notes taken by a private attorney's secretary from the complainant, considering them Rosario material for cross-examination. The prosecution argued they neither possessed nor controlled these notes, and the attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. The court ruled that the notes are not Rosario material, citing lack of prosecution possession or control and the statutory attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the prosecution is not obligated to produce the notes for trial.

Rosario MaterialDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeProsecutorial ControlWitness StatementCriminal ProcedureAssaultWeapon PossessionTrial EvidenceConfidentiality
References
14
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. 1430/93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 1995

People v. Hunts

This opinion addresses a legal issue in a criminal trial involving enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud, grand larceny, and Martin Act violations against former Oxford Capital Securities, Inc. employees Hunte, Robinson, and Dowling. A key cooperating witness, Leonard Donner, asserted attorney-client privilege when questioned about his awareness of potential penalties he faced if he hadn't accepted a cooperation agreement. The court, presided over by Justice Colleen McMahon, ruled that the defendants' Sixth Amendment right of confrontation outweighs Donner's attorney-client privilege. The judge found that Donner's motive to falsify testimony was not a collateral matter and was crucial to the defense. Therefore, Donner was compelled to answer questions regarding his knowledge of the penalties, overriding his privilege.

Enterprise CorruptionAttorney-Client PrivilegeSixth Amendment Right of ConfrontationCooperating WitnessMotive to Falsify TestimonyWaiver of PrivilegePublic PolicyCriminal ProcedurePlea AgreementWitness Impeachment
References
23
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. 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
Dec 10, 2014

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses a class and collective action filed by plaintiff Maxcimo Scott against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act due to the misclassification of "apprentices" as exempt from overtime pay. Chipotle asserted statutory good faith defenses under 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 but sought a protective order to prevent discovery of attorney-client communications, claiming it did not rely on legal advice. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, ruled that Chipotle's invocation of good faith defenses implicitly waived attorney-client privilege, as the advice of counsel was central to evaluating the sincerity of these defenses. Consequently, the court denied Chipotle's motion for a protective order, compelling the production of relevant privileged documents. Additionally, the decision permits discovery into Chipotle's differing classification of apprentices in California, deeming it relevant to the issue of willfulness and good faith in other states.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL)Overtime CompensationWage and Hour DisputesClass Action LawsuitAttorney-Client PrivilegeAt-Issue WaiverGood Faith DefenseProtective Order MotionEmployment Misclassification
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 3,339 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