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

Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

The case concerns attorney Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s challenge to disciplinary actions taken by the State Bar of Texas. He was disciplined by the Advertising Review Committee and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline for alleged violations of professional conduct rules related to lawyer advertising. Izen contended that these entities violated his fundamental constitutional right to due process by failing to adhere to their own procedures, expanding their investigation without notice, and initiating disciplinary proceedings without allowing him an opportunity to rectify perceived issues, despite accepting his fees. The dissenting justice concurred, arguing that the application of former Rule 7.07 was unconstitutional, as it deprived Izen of fair notice and a chance to cure violations. Consequently, the dissenting justice advocated for vacating the district court's judgment, which had favored the Commission, and dismissing all proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionState Bar of TexasProfessional Conduct RulesSafe HarborProcedural Due Process
References
18
Case No. ADJ6853853
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KYB FUGFUGOSH vs. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that San Quentin State Prison committed serious and willful misconduct. The applicant, an inmate kitchen worker, sustained a right shoulder injury on June 18, 2008, after being ordered to work despite presenting medical documentation of his injury and post-surgical condition. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's finding that prison officials' failure to acknowledge and act on the applicant's medical limitations constituted a reckless disregard for his safety, proximately causing his injury. The employer's arguments regarding perjured testimony and newly discovered evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Quentin State PrisonState Compensation Insurance Fundserious and willful misconductadmitted injurykitchen workerarthroscopic acromioplastyrotator cuff tearsfailure to reportinmate request for interview
References
1
Case No. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Raul Garcia v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This disciplinary action was initiated by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney Raul Garcia for alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court found Garcia in violation of rules concerning fee-splitting with a non-lawyer, assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, and practicing under a trade name, while ruling in his favor on a charge of forming a partnership with a non-lawyer. Garcia appealed the district court's partial summary judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Garcia indeed violated rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) as an employee of a non-profit organization providing legal services.

Legal EthicsAttorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingTrade NameProfessional MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Law
References
16
Case No. 01-07-01114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2010

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Justice Keyes dissents from the majority's decision, asserting that the State Bar of Texas and its Commission for Lawyer Discipline violated appellant Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s fundamental constitutional due process rights. Izen was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a license suspension after the Advertising Review Committee broadened its investigation into his advertising practices sua sponte, despite an initial offer for administrative resolution. The dissent argues that the Committee failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure alleged violations, contrary to its own rules and the "safe harbor" provision of former Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.07. Justice Keyes concludes that Rule 7.07, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional under both federal and Texas constitutions. Consequently, she would vacate the district court's judgment and dismiss the proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative LawTexas State BarProfessional ConductSafe Harbor
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eureste v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Bernardo Eureste, a Texas attorney specializing in workers' compensation, appealed a three-year suspension from law practice, stemming from complaints by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Fund and a former client, Juan Granado. The complaints focused on Eureste's illegal and unconscionable billing practices, where he routinely overbilled clients by reporting non-attorney work as his own and charging maximum fees irrespective of actual time spent. Additionally, Eureste was cited for inadequate representation, specifically failing to assist Granado in obtaining crucial shoulder surgery, despite his contractual obligations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that Eureste violated multiple Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including those related to illegal fees, dishonesty, client neglect, and inadequate communication. The court upheld the imposed sanctions, emphasizing the significant financial loss to clients and the severe damage inflicted upon the legal profession by Eureste's conduct.

Attorney MisconductProfessional EthicsWorkers' Compensation LawBilling FraudUnconscionable FeesClient NeglectInadequate RepresentationLegal Ethics ViolationSuspension of Law LicenseTexas Disciplinary Rules
References
18
Case No. 03-96-00151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Pedro Antonio Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment that suspended his authority to practice law for eighteen months. The suspension followed a jury's finding that Diaz violated three disciplinary rules: making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, commingling lawyer and client funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Diaz challenged the submission of additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the district court proceedings were original and independent, allowing for the assertion of additional claims. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the false statements made in an affidavit and rejected arguments concerning materiality and Diaz's role as a party.

lawyer disciplineprofessional misconductfalse statementscommingling fundsattorney suspensionappellate reviewTexas lawlegal ethicssummary judgmentequitable lien
References
3
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

Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment suspending his law license for 18 months in Texas. The disciplinary action stemmed from a complaint by his former law partner, Kenneth Korth, who alleged Diaz made false statements in an affidavit during a lawsuit concerning a $15,000 debt and an equitable lien on Diaz's home. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline brought charges against Diaz, including making false statements to a tribunal, commingling funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. A jury found Diaz committed all three violations. On appeal, Diaz challenged the submission of two additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error and sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, particularly regarding the false statement made to a tribunal.

Lawyer DisciplineProfessional MisconductFalse StatementsAffidavitEquitable LienTrial De NovoSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewSuspension of LicenseCommingling Funds
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 377 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