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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
