Lawyer Representing 35 Defendants in Fraud Case Has Insurmountable Conflict
Post 5110
Alleged Fraudsters have Obvious Conflicts with Each Other
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGC6FcAx and at https://lnkd.in/gJVjACnq and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
In Allstate Insurance Company, et. al v. Robert Matturro, D.C., et al.; New Jersey Department Of Banking And Insurance, Intervenor, No. A-0711-24, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (June 16, 2025) Allstate and several related entities sued forty-two defendants, including medical practices, their owners, administrators, and various corporate entities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in an insurance fraud scheme involving unlawfully structured medical practices, self-referrals, kickbacks, and medically unnecessary treatments and tests.
The Allstate plaintiffs sought damages for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits paid to the defendants, compensatory damages for investigating fraudulent bills, arbitration-related costs, a declaratory judgment, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
DEFENSE COUNSEL
The Randolph Firm represents approximately thirty-five of the forty-two defendants, including several medical practices and corporate entities. Plaintiffs moved to disqualify the Randolph Firm from representing these defendants due to significant risks of conflicts of interest.
The Appellate Division found that there are significant risks of conflicts developing among the defendants represented by the Randolph Firm, especially as the case proceeds and liability and damages may need to be apportioned under the Comparative Negligence Act (CN Act).
DISCUSSION
A determination of whether counsel should be disqualified the burden is on the movant to prove a basis for disqualification.
When deciding a motion to disqualify counsel, courts must balance competing interests, weighing the need to maintain the highest standards of the profession against a client’s right freely to choose his or her counsel. Motions for disqualification should be viewed skeptically in light of their potential abuse to secure tactical advantage.
Nevertheless, if there is “any doubt as to the propriety of an attorney’s representation of a client, such doubt must be resolved in favor of disqualification.”
Risk of Conflicts
The Appellate Division concluded that trial court erroneously found that there was no significant risk that potential conflicts could arise among the approximately thirty-five defendants represented by the Randolph Firm.
The Appellate Division held there are significant risks that conflicts will develop among defendants represented by the Randolph Firm. Even more there is evidence that significant conflicts of interest have already developed between and amongst the numerous defendants represented by the Randolph Firm.
The certifications and depositions provided by plaintiffs support that conclusion. Moreover, there are significant risks certain defendants may, as the facts develop further, assert that other defendants had a greater role in the alleged fraud schemes or compelled them to participate in the schemes. If those situations arise, the Randolph Firm could not ethically advise all defendants because of those conflicting interests. Fundamentally, at least some defendants maintain that Rosania or Matturro managed the Rosania entities, and they controlled the finances of the Rosania entities.
In response to plaintiffs’ interrogatories, the Randolph Firm served the expert report of Gary S. Stetz, a certified public accountant. In his report, Stetz made two findings, which are potentially detrimental to the positions advanced by the physicians represented by the Randolph Firm. First, Stetz noted his “investigation found that none of the [Rosania] entities . . . would require a [medical doctor] or [doctor of osteopathic medicine] to perform examinations and procedures [which] were controlled by [doctors of chiropractic.] “Second, Stetz determined there were no medical doctors or osteopaths who were employed by Matturro or Rosania.
In seeking to minimize the liability of some defendants it represents, the Randolph Firm would have to argue that the other defendants it represents were more at fault, or perhaps more involved in the alleged fraud scheme. The record in this matter establishes that there are significant risks that conflicts will develop among defendants. As stated, defendants have a common interest in disputing the allegations against them, but as the case develops, they also may have an interest in seeking to minimize their own liability and maximize their co-defendants’ liability. If plaintiffs’ claims proceed to trial and there is a verdict against defendants, the liability and damages will have to be apportioned among defendants under statute.
Therefore, the Appellate Division held that there are significant risks of conflict arising among the thirty-five defendants represented by the Randolph Firm, especially in light of a pending trial date, requires disqualification of the Randolph Firm.
ZALMA OPINION
A law firm that represents 35 different defendants who are claimed to have defrauded the plaintiff using various schemes where one can, and must, have different interests than other defendants. Disqualification was required since the lawyers, to represent their clients properly, will necessarily find one client adverse to the other and will be unable to fairly represent each of its clients. In the best of all possible worlds each of the 42 defendants should have separate counsel with one lawyer or law firm representing each defendant to the best of each client’s rights.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
