According to various media sources, prosecutors allege that on Dec. 30, the complainant called 911 to report a domestic violence incident. The woman claims that the sergeant groped her buttocks during the incident. Shortly afterward, the officer was charged with various misdemeanor sex offense charges. The sergeant was then arraigned and released on recognizance; he was later suspended without pay. 

“When an accusation involves unwanted sexual contact, the first court appearance often brings immediate conditions that reshape day-to-day life,” Brill said. “That can include a temporary order of protection and other restrictions that are easy to violate if someone does not understand the terms.

“A single allegation can lead to several charges, and the accusatory instrument is only the starting point,” Brill said. “The focus should remain on what the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, using reliable evidence and lawful procedures.

​The arraignment stage also entails practical risks that many people underestimate. New York courts issue a securing order at arraignment, and courts frequently issue temporary orders of protection in pending criminal cases. Those orders can include no-contact and stay-away terms that apply immediately, including through third parties and digital communication.

The ​Brill Legal Group, P.C., represents individuals and organizations facing prosecution for state and federal crimes in New York, and also represents professionals in disciplinary inquiries and hearings, including doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, and police officers. For more information, contact the Brill Legal Group, P.C., at 888-315-9841.

According to the filing, the agency’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and made “in violation of lawful procedure,” allegations that form the legal basis for relief under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Article 78 proceedings provide a mechanism for individuals and entities to challenge actions by New York state and local agencies, boards, and officers. In the petition, Brill Legal Group argues that the agency failed to follow its own rules and did not give adequate consideration to the evidence presented by the petitioner, as outlined in the court documents.

The proceeding will be decided largely on the written administrative record and legal briefs submitted by both sides, rather than on live testimony. Under New York law, the court’s review in an Article 78 case typically focuses on whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority and whether its determination had a rational basis in the record.

Brill Legal Group represents individuals and organizations in matters involving administrative agencies, professional discipline and related judicial review in New York’s trial and appellate courts. The firm’s attorneys regularly handle Article 78 proceedings challenging a range of governmental determinations, from licensing and disciplinary actions to employment and regulatory disputes.

CASE INFORMATION

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
Ryan Cargill v. David Howard
Case No. CV-25-0143

The review, led by attorney Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller, focuses on reports that Wilmington subjected minor patients to medically unnecessary examinations and engaged in inappropriate contact during pediatric visits. According to law enforcement statements and publicly reported investigations, the Vancouver Police Department and the Clark County Sheriff’s Office have uncovered allegations of child molestation and the distribution of child sexual abuse material connected to Wilmington.

In civil court filings and other public records, former patients and families have alleged that complaints and warning signs involving Wilmington were ignored for years. The Sommers Schwartz investigation is examining not only the conduct attributed to Wilmington, but also whether any institutions responsible for supervising him fulfilled their legal obligations to protect patients from foreseeable harm.

“When abuse is alleged to have taken place in a medical setting, the inquiry cannot stop with the individual provider,” Esser-Weidenfeller said. “Hospitals and health systems have a duty to implement safeguards, respond to credible complaints and create an environment where children and families feel safe coming forward.”

Under Washington law and widely recognized standards of care, healthcare institutions may face civil liability if they fail to properly vet, monitor or respond to concerns about employees with access to vulnerable populations. Esser-Weidenfeller said the firm’s review includes evaluating whether any systemic failures may have enabled alleged misconduct to continue.

Esser-Weidenfeller has represented survivors in some of the nation’s most closely watched sexual abuse cases, including litigation involving former Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar, and cases concerning the late University of Michigan physicians Robert Anderson and Matthew Weiss. Her work has centered on patterns of institutional inaction and coverups and the long-term impact of abuse on survivors.

“Survivors often describe not only the harm caused by an abuser, but also the deep sense of betrayal when institutions do not act on warning signs,” Esser-Weidenfeller said. “Part of our role is to examine carefully what was known, when it was known and what, if anything, was done in response.”

Esser-Weidenfeller emphasized that many survivors of childhood sexual abuse delay disclosure for years, often due to shame, fear or concerns about not being believed. Public reporting about past misconduct, she said, can be a catalyst for individuals to re-examine earlier experiences in a medical setting that they may have questioned but did not fully understand as children.

“Coming forward is a personal decision, and the pace belongs to the survivor,” she said. “Our responsibility is to listen, to explain the options the law provides and to help people make informed choices about what, if anything, they wish to pursue.”

Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
(800) 783-0989
LEsser@sommerspc.com

Garcia, 34, pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, a misdemeanor, in connection with a 2023 incident involving an intoxicated woman in the Bronx. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program, prosecutors said.

Attorney Peter Brill of Brill Legal Group said Garcia opted to resolve the case with a misdemeanor plea in light of the potential exposure he faced if convicted on felony counts at trial.

“Mr. Garcia accepted responsibility to avoid the risks of a felony conviction and the far harsher penalties that could have followed,” Brill said, noting that the plea agreement reflects a negotiated outcome in a contested and closely scrutinized case. He added that Garcia will be under supervision during his probation and must comply with all court-ordered treatment requirements.

The case, prosecuted in Bronx County, drew attention because the defendant was a then-serving NYPD officer and because of the role forensic DNA evidence played in the investigation, as described in court documents and by prosecutors. The pleas and sentences mark the latest development in ongoing public and judicial scrutiny of alleged off-duty misconduct by law enforcement officers in New York City.

Developed through the combined lens of metropolitan law enforcement experience, adult learning systems, curriculum analysis, and organizational review, the Police Praxis framework focuses on a recurring institutional issue increasingly visible within modern constitutional litigation: the distinction between documented training activity and the operational capacity of an organization’s underlying training structure.

In many police-related civil actions, municipalities and public entities may present policy manuals, lesson plans, academy materials, training rosters, and administrative records as evidence that personnel received instruction regarding constitutional obligations and operational procedures. Police Praxis examines the broader institutional questions surrounding those records, including whether the surrounding instructional environment demonstrates meaningful organizational continuity, administrative coordination, supervisory integration, and implementation integrity.

“A training record may document that instruction occurred,” Loglisci stated. “The more difficult institutional question is whether the organizational system surrounding that instruction possessed the structural integrity necessary to support what an agency later suggests its personnel were prepared to execute operationally.”

Examining the Institutional System Beneath the Record

In complex Section 1983 and Monell litigation, discovery frequently produces extensive collections of policies, directives, attendance records, lesson plans, internal memoranda, and training materials. While these records may document institutional activity, they do not necessarily establish how instructional decisions were made, how curriculum standards were maintained, how supervisory expectations were reinforced, or how organizational deficiencies were identified and addressed over time.

Police Praxis approaches police training as an interconnected administrative structure rather than a series of isolated classroom events. The framework examines whether organizational systems surrounding police training activity demonstrate coherent alignment between administrative expectations, documented instruction, institutional oversight, and operational implementation.

Rather than concentrating exclusively on individual officer conduct or subjective intent, the framework shifts analytical attention toward institutional systems, organizational design, and administrative continuity. Its purpose is not to provide legal conclusions or advocacy positions, but to assist licensed counsel in examining whether a law enforcement organization’s documented training structure reflects meaningful organizational alignment across the broader institution.

For licensed counsel navigating high-volume constitutional litigation, the framework is intended to assist in isolating institutional training issues that may otherwise remain buried within expansive administrative productions. By organizing attention around structural training questions, organizational continuity, and documented implementation practices, the framework may help attorneys develop more focused lines of inquiry regarding policymaker oversight, institutional notice, administrative follow-through, and broader patterns of organizational response relevant to municipal liability analysis.

The framework further recognizes that modern police training environments increasingly operate through layered administrative systems involving digital learning platforms, evolving policy structures, distributed instructional materials, supervisory review mechanisms, and institution-wide implementation responsibilities. As those systems become more administratively complex, evaluating institutional preparedness may require analytical review extending beyond traditional document production alone.

“Artificial intelligence systems can summarize records, organize policies, and process large quantities of administrative data,” Loglisci said. “What they cannot independently replicate is lived institutional understanding developed through years inside complex organizational systems where curriculum, supervision, operational culture, administrative decision-making, and implementation realities intersect simultaneously across time.”

Police Praxis was developed as a writing-centered analytical framework intended for attorney-retained review in matters involving police training systems, instructional governance, organizational preparedness, curriculum alignment, and administrative oversight. Its work remains document-focused, systems-oriented, and grounded in institutional analysis rather than incident-specific advocacy.

Professional and Academic Foundation

Prior to developing Police Praxis, Loglisci spent more than two decades working within one of the nation’s largest metropolitan policing environments, including assignments connected to police instruction, curriculum development, training coordination, and organizational educational systems. His academic work includes advanced study in adult learning and workforce development principles, with continuing doctoral research examining instructional alignment and organizational structures within police training environments.

That combined professional and academic background contributed to the development of Police Praxis as a specialized framework situated at the intersection of organizational systems analysis, adult education, and law enforcement institutional review.

According to the complaint, Benson Fischer — who states he has never met or spoken to Dennis Yu, became the target of an online campaign that commenced in April 2025. The complaint asserts the conflict stems from Fischer’s work as a business and franchise consultant for 12 franchisees of Nautical Bowls, who were in a legal dispute with the parent franchising company.

Extortion and “Digital Warfare”

Benson Fischer alleges that Yu, who established a professional relationship with Nautical Bowls in 2024, used LinkedIn and various internet platforms in an effort to harass Fischer. The goal, according to the filing, was to pressure Benson Fischer into abandoning his consulting role and halt his assistance to attorney Richard Schimel in the franchisees’ pursuit of a settlement.

Fischer alleges that Yu’s conduct escalated into what it describes as a “digital warfare” strategy, including:

• Cybersquatting: The complaint alleges Yu purchased domain names including Benson-Fischer.com and BensonFisher.com without consent to use as a weapon.
• SEO Manipulation: The complaint states Yu used these domains and the name “ZivZo” in numerous URLs to elevate disparaging content in Google search results.
• Targeting Legal Counsel: The lawsuit alleges Yu also purchased the domain RichardSchimel.com to post articles criticizing Fischer’s attorney’s website and used unauthorized photographs of Schimel in his postings.

Nautical Bowls Connection

The litigation against Yu is proceeding alongside a related action. In a separate case filed in the same court, Benson Fischer has also sued Nautical Bowls Franchising Company, LLC (Case No. 8:25-cv-02286), also seeking $6 million in damages.

The second complaint alleges that Nautical Bowls Franchising Company conspired with Dennis Yu after Nautical Bowls’ attack on Fischer failed. The complaint alleges that Nautical Bowls efforts were designed to obstruct Fischer’s consulting services and interfere with the franchisees’ pursuit of a resolution.

Dennis Yu’s Refusal to Remove Content

After five days of mediation in September 2025, Benson Fischer and Richard Schimel settled all of the franchisees’ claims. According to the complaint, Yu has not removed the posts referencing Fischer and ZivZo, and Fischer’s requests for removal have been unsuccessful.

According to court filings, Yu’s year-long online activity includes more than 20 articles that the complaint characterizes as containing a “mix of fabrications and unsubstantiated statements about Fischer, his marketing firm ZivZo”, and his legal counsel, Richard Schimel.

Benson Fischer further alleges that Yu has conditioned removal of the posts on a monetary payment and the dismissal of Fischer’s federal lawsuit. Court records show that Yu did not file any counterclaims to justify such financial demand.

Over the past year, Benson Fischer has filed four Peace Order petitions (restraining orders) and obtained temporary court orders directing Yu to cease his online activity referencing Fischer and ZivZo and to remove all related posts. According to the complaint, to secure a permanent order Yu must be served by a process server or a local Sheriff’s Department, and service has been attempted nearly 30 times without success.

Dennis Yu’s Pattern of Behavior

The Maryland complaint alleges what it characterizes as a “pattern of behavior” by Yu involving other individuals and legal professionals. Fischer’s complaint references a separate case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:25-cv-80391), which the Maryland complaint describes as similar in nature.

In the Florida case, Yu engaged in similar conduct involving Lisa T. Miller and her legal counsel, including former State Attorney Dave Aronberg and attorney L.A. Perkins. The Maryland complaint alleges that, as in the Fischer matter, the Florida case involved allegations that Yu purchased domains containing the attorneys’ names.

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
ZivZo, LLC & Benson J. Fischer v. Dennis Yu
Case No. 8:25-CV-02075-PX

Plaintiff is a Forensic Social Worker in The Legal Aid Society’s Parole Revocation Defense (“PRDU”) Unit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has ankylosing spondylitis and underwent medical treatment that rendered her immunocompromised. According to the complaint, Plaintiff sought a disability-based accommodation that would allow her to limit unnecessary courthouse exposure while remaining available to attend court when her physical presence was needed for client meetings, attorney support, hearings, or other court-related needs.

The complaint alleges that, rather than provide interim protection or conduct a good-faith individualized assessment, The Legal Aid Society required Plaintiff to remain physically present in court or the courthouse for up to seven hours per day during several court-coverage days, including when no client-specific or attorney-specific need required her physical presence. Plaintiff alleges that she had previously performed her job by working from The Legal Aid Society office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court in-person when needed.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a disability-based accommodation to work from The Legal Aid Society office during onsite court-coverage shifts and to attend court when called, rather than maintaining continuous courthouse presence. The complaint alleges that The Legal Aid Society denied her disability-based accommodation request on January 20, 2026, asserted that in-person/onsite court coverage was an essential function of the PRDU Forensic Social Worker role, and failed to provide an effective interim accommodation while the request was pending.

The complaint further alleges that The Legal Aid Society re-characterized Plaintiff’s job duties after she sought an accommodation, demanded unnecessary additional medical documentation, failed to engage in a good-faith cooperative dialogue, and retaliated against Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who requested disability-based accommodations or opposed disability accommodation practices.

Plaintiff alleges that, during the period when her accommodation request remained unresolved, she was required to continue disputed in-person court coverage without interim protection. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ refusal to provide interim protection required unnecessary or excessive courthouse exposure while she was immunocompromised and materially increased her risk of infection.

The complaint further alleges that other Legal Aid Society employees experienced similar accommodation-related practices. It seeks certification of four proposed classes: (1) a Location-Based Accommodation Class for employees who requested work-location, remote-work, reduced-presence, or exposure-limiting accommodations, (2) a Post-Request Job-Duty Recharacterization Class for employees whose duties or asserted essential functions were allegedly changed after they requested accommodations, (3) a NYCHRL Accommodation Delay Class for employees whose requests were allegedly delayed, including without interim measures, and (4) an Additional Medical Documentation Class for employees allegedly required to provide unnecessary or excessive medical documentation.

The ten-count complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint’s claims include: alleged failure to reasonably accommodate; retaliation; interference, coercion, threats, and intimidation; medical inquiry violations; unlawful qualification standards and screening; failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue; and aiding and abetting liability against the individual defendants under the NYCHRL.

Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, timely, individualized accommodation procedures, prompt interim measures while accommodation requests are pending, limits on allegedly unnecessary medical-documentation demands, as well as training, monitoring, and other forward-looking relief. As to declaratory relief, Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that The Legal Aid Society’s alleged conduct was willful and undertaken with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the proposed classes.

Plaintiff also seeks individual relief including back pay, front pay, reinstatement and/or full grant of the requested accommodation, compensatory damages, punitive damages under the NYCHRL, nominal damages, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and interest.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03882, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint contains allegations only. The Court has not made any findings on the merits, and Defendants have not been adjudicated liable for any of the alleged conduct.

CASE INFORMATION

Southern District of New York
Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03882

According to the FBI, investigators believe Castillo primarily targeted minors participating in volleyball leagues between 2010 and March 2026 in multiple states, with a focus on New York City. Federal authorities have notified high schools, colleges, and volleyball clubs in the New York metropolitan area that Castillo is being investigated in connection with a reported sexual assault that occurred earlier this year.

The investigation is ongoing, and no criminal findings have yet been made public. Esser-Weidenfeller and Dragovic said the firm’s role at this stage is to listen to potential survivors, help them understand their options, and coordinate with law enforcement and trauma-informed resources. They emphasized that any conversations with the firm will be confidential and voluntary.

“Many people who were harmed as teenagers by adults in positions of authority do not recognize what happened as abuse until years later,” Esser-Weidenfeller said. “We are talking with current and former athletes who may have had contact with Mr. Castillo to help them sort through their experiences in a safe, informed way.”

The FBI has indicated that the potential conduct under investigation may span club, school, and collegiate volleyball programs and may cross state lines. Youth and young adults who participated in volleyball leagues in or around New York City during the identified period are considered a particular focus, according to federal authorities’ outreach to institutions.

Dragovic noted that coaches and trainers in youth sports often hold significant power over playing time, scholarship opportunities, and team status, which can complicate how young athletes understand coercive or abusive behavior. “When the authority figure is a coach, the pressure to comply or to stay silent can be intense,” he said. “Years later, former players may still question whether what happened to them ‘counts’ as abuse. Those are exactly the kinds of questions we are prepared to discuss.”

Advocates and law enforcement officials have long warned that abuse in youth sports can remain hidden for extended periods, particularly when incidents occur off campus or outside official team activities. In some cases, investigators learn of patterns of misconduct only after multiple individuals step forward independently.

Esser-Weidenfeller said the firm is paying particular attention to the unique challenges faced by those who may still be in school or living near the volleyball programs where they once played. “We understand that coming forward can feel risky, especially if a survivor worries about their education or their standing in the athletic community,” she said. “No one is obligated to take any specific legal path; simply sharing information and learning about available support can be an important first step.”

Sommers Schwartz, P.C. stressed that any person who believes they may have been harmed by Castillo, or who has information that may be relevant to the FBI’s inquiry, can choose to contact federal authorities directly. The firm also said it is available to speak with individuals and families who want to better understand their civil rights and options without making any immediate decisions.

Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
(800) 783-0989
LEsser@sommerspc.com

Andy Dragovic
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
(800) 783-0989
adragovic@sommerspc.com

In a highly competitive championship round, MSLAW faced Case Western Reserve University School of Law, which ultimately secured the national title in an exceptionally close and hard-fought trial. MSLAW’s second-place finish marks the first time in the school’s history that it has advanced to the National Championship Final, building on its previous record of multiple Top 4 finishes.

“This achievement reflects the extraordinary talent, preparation, and determination of our students,” said MSLAW faculty. “They continue to demonstrate that MSLAW competitors are among the very best in the country.”

The 2025–2026 competition centered on a complex double murder case set in a Philadelphia condominium. Students were challenged to analyze crime scene evidence, autopsy and forensic reports, and argue motions in limine to admit or exclude key evidence. Competitors conducted full trial proceedings, including opening statements, direct and cross-examinations of lay and expert witnesses, and closing arguments. Each four-person team argued both prosecution and defense sides, with students rotating roles as attorneys and witnesses.

MSLAW competed against 18 of the nation’s top law school teams—each a regional champion—progressing through multiple elimination rounds:

• Sweet 16: Defeated University of Maryland (Mid-Atlantic Regional Winner)
• Elite 8: Defeated Florida State University (Southern Regional Champion)
• Final Four: Defeated Syracuse University in a rematch of the NEBLSA regional competition
• Championship Round: Competed against Case Western Reserve University School of Law

The MSLAW team representing the school at the National Finals included:

• Klara Fleury (Brockton, MA)
• Kevin Marful (Worcester, MA)
• Sophia Basile (Rowley, MA)
• Julio Hernandez (Chelsea, MA)

Additional MSLAW Trial Team members who placed second in the Northeast Region of NBLSA include:
Marc Fevry, Dzidzai Mashoko, Cin Duran Valdez, Ashley Lopez Dishmey, Thor White, Farrah Kannan, Justin Fairbanks, and Preston Jackson-Stephens.

The team is coached by Professor Amy Dimitriadis and Professor Dan Harayda, whose leadership and mentorship have been instrumental in the program’s continued national success.

This milestone achievement underscores MSLAW’s commitment to practical legal training and excellence in advocacy, preparing students to excel in real-world courtroom environments.

About the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover
The Massachusetts School of Law provides an academically rigorous and affordable legal education with a focus on advocacy, ethics, and professional skills, preparing graduates to become effective lawyers and leaders in their communities.

Media Contact:
Rohit Bhasin, J.D.
Director of Admissions and Marketing
ro@mslaw.edu

Attorney Jim McConkie said, “Our client is a young Venezuelan man who came into the U.S. legally to escape threats of violence by the Venezuelan government against his family for their opposition to the Maduro regime.” McConkie emphasized that “our client has no criminal record either in the U.S. or in Venezuela.”

To protect the client from public and government harassment, his name is not being made public at this time in favor of a pseudonym—Johnny Hernandez—to protect him from public and private harassment.

Brent Ward, a past United States Attorney for Utah and present member of the Parker & McConkie firm, said, “Mr. Hernandez was unlawfully detained by ICE and summarily deported to an El Salvadoran prison known as CECOT—a maximum security mega prison (capacity 40,000) plagued by overcrowding, lack of medical care, regular beatings, torture and an egregious history of inmate deaths while in custody.”

Mr. McConkie said, “The Trump Administration knowingly and unlawfully locked up an innocent person for four months in a concentration camp-like prison where he suffered torture, shooting, beatings and solitary confinement.”

Mr. McConkie commented further that, “When the U.S. government knowingly and purposefully violates the law by detaining and deporting innocent individuals on false charges and is not held responsible, the individual rights of not just legal immigrants but all Americans are placed in jeopardy. Our client suffered catastrophic injuries in CECOT from which he will never fully recover. Failing to demand accountability now places all Americans in jeopardy in the future.”

Richard Lambert, past Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Utah and another present member of the Parker & McConkie law firm, said, “This case is vitally important to all Utahns because ICE now proposes to incarcerate 7,000-10,000 people in a megaprison in Utah. The vast majority of inmates there will be people who are innocent of any serious crime. Such a facility invites the kinds of abuses that have been documented at CECOT.”

For questions and media requests, please contact David Watkins, Senior Publicist at Otter PR, at david.watkins@otterpr.com, or visit parkerandmcconkie.com. 

Awareness Saves Lives

Attorney Paul Greenberg said the firm’s goal in publishing the data is to encourage drivers to be more cautious on dangerous roads. “We hope that putting this information in front of Chicago drivers causes them to slow down and pay closer attention while driving through these areas,” Greenberg said. “If even a handful of people see that Ashland Avenue or Stony Island has become significantly more deadly and adjust how they drive on those streets, that can save lives.”

Western Avenue Remains Chicago’s Most Dangerous Street

Western Avenue recorded 3,118 crashes in 2025, maintaining its position as the city’s highest-crash corridor for the third consecutive year. The street produced 756 total injuries, including 54 incapacitating injuries, and 3 fatalities over the course of the year. One in four crashes on Western Avenue involved a driver who fled the scene. That accounts for 780 hit-and-run incidents, the highest raw count of any street in the city.

Pulaski Road ranked second with 2,477 crashes in 2025 but represents one of the clearest safety improvements in the dataset. Crashes on Pulaski dropped 15.4% from 2023 levels, and fatalities fell from 6 to 1 over the same period. Cicero Avenue (2,409 crashes) and Ashland Avenue (2,321 crashes) round out the top four by volume, though their trajectories diverge significantly.

Ashland and Stony Island Signal a South Side Fatal Car Accident Crisis

While Chicago’s overall traffic fatality count dropped 37.7% over the study period, from 151 deaths in 2023 to 94 in 2025, that improvement is not evenly distributed across the city.

Ashland Avenue recorded just 1 fatality in 2023. By 2025, that number had risen to 5, a fivefold increase as total crash counts remained relatively stable. The firm’s analysis characterizes this pattern as indicative of speed or severity changes rather than a simple volume problem.

Stony Island Avenue presents an even more abrupt shift. The corridor recorded zero fatalities in 2024 before surging to 4 in 2025. Combined with a 31.9% hit-and-run rate, the highest among major Chicago streets, Stony Island has become one of the most legally complex corridors for crash victims seeking compensation, according to attorneys at the firm. 103rd Street also recorded 2 fatalities in 2025 alongside a 14% increase in total crash volume, making it the only emerging hotspot in the study with multiple deaths.

Taken together, the South Side data points to a geographic divergence: corridors on the city’s South and Southwest sides are moving in the opposite direction from the broader citywide trend.

Hit-and-Run Car Accidents in Chicago are a Citywide Crisis

Across the 30 highest-crash streets in Chicago, hit-and-run rates ranged from 21.8% to 31.9% in 2025. The top corridors by total hit-and-run incidents were Western Avenue (780), Pulaski Road (666), Ashland Avenue (643), and Cicero Avenue (594). Across just those four streets, more than 2,700 crash victims were left without an identifiable at-fault driver in a single year.

Lethality Metrics Reveal Streets Beyond the Top 10

The study introduces a fatalities-per-1,000-crashes metric to identify streets where collisions are disproportionately likely to turn fatal, regardless of total crash volume. Under this measure, Estes Avenue ranks first in Chicago with 31.25 fatalities per 1,000 crashes in 2025, more than 30 times the rate of Western Avenue despite a fraction of the crash volume.

Lake Shore Drive Southbound stands out among high-volume streets, recording 6.44 fatalities per 1,000 crashes and 17 total deaths over the three-year study period. The combination of highway-speed traffic with urban access points makes it one of the more dangerous daily commute corridors in the city.

Emerging Hotspots Show Early Warning Signs

The analysis flags several streets posting sharp year-over-year crash increases between 2024 and 2025. Sheridan Road saw the largest absolute increase among established corridors, adding 120 crashes for a 15.9% jump. Orleans Street (+43.2%) and Huron Street (+31.6%) showed the steepest percentage increases among lower-volume streets.

The firm’s policy recommendations call for fatality-focused intervention on Ashland Avenue, Stony Island Avenue, and Marshfield Avenue; targeted enforcement and engineering on emerging hotspots; and replication of the safety interventions that have demonstrably worked on Pulaski Road, State Street, and Lake Shore Drive Northbound.

The full report and methodology on Chicago’s Most Dangerous Streets for Car Accidents is available on the firm’s website. 

The Special Impact Litigation Grants will supplement the Center’s Annual Grant Program and reflect the urgency of the current threats facing organizations supporting social justice and civil rights. In addition to providing financial support, the Center will partner directly with selected grantees as co-counsel, offering collaborative litigation support to strengthen high-impact cases.

“These grants are rooted in our belief that funding alone is often not enough,” said Jerry Hartman, President of the Barbara McDowell Social Justice Center. “At this moment when fundamental civil rights are under grave attack, we are committed to pairing financial resources with our litigation expertise to help nonprofit legal organizations bring cases that can ensure social justice.

Eligibility and Application Process

The Special Impact Litigation Grant application will be open from March 16 through March 31, 2026. Any eligible nonprofit organization pursuing a new high impact litigation case may apply, including organizations that have not previously received funding from the Center.

Current and past Center grantees are eligible to apply, provided the application is for a new case that has not previously received funding from the Center.

Eligible nonprofit organizations may submit a completed application through the Center’s online, one-step application process.

Applications will be reviewed by the Center’s Grant Committee, which will recommend a subset of proposals to the Center’s Board of Directors for final review. The Board will make final determinations regarding the number of grants awarded and the amount of each grant.

Grant Awards and Notification

In addition to financial support, ranging from $20-25K per grant, selected grantees will partner directly with the Center as co-counsel, receiving hands-on legal collaboration and litigation expertise to support high-impact cases. A detailed description of the litigation support provided by the Center is available as part of the application materials.

Applicants will be notified of funding decisions by April 30, 2026.

For more information about the Special Impact Litigation Grant Program and to apply, visit https://www.mcdowellsocialjusticecenter.org/special-impact-litigation-grant-2026

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint was brought on behalf of a former director of human resources and total rewards. Erlich Law Firm serves as co-counsel with AKW Law, P.C.

The plaintiff was hired in 2024 as a Senior Compensation Manager and, within weeks, promoted to a Director role. The Chief Financial Officer is alleged to have praised the promotion in writing. Additionally, the plaintiff’s year-end review in December 2024 as “Exceeds Expectations,” with no record of discipline or performance warnings.

Court filings allege that employees of color in the department were talked over in meetings, repeatedly misnamed, and subjected to unprofessional forms of address, while their accomplishments were minimized in comparison with white facing coworkers.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff was terminated for “conduct” concerns, which the plaintiff contends were pretextual. The company’s HR department is alleged to have contributed to derogatory remarks and poor management. The plaintiff argues that they were never notified of specific allegations, never interviewed, and were not given progressive discipline or prior counseling before being dismissed.

“These court filings allege that a company with written anti-discrimination policies failed to follow its own stated procedures when a senior leader raised concerns about race in the workplace,” said Jason Erlich of Erlich Law Firm. “The complaint contends that our client went from being promoted and rated as exceeding expectations to being fired within days of reporting discrimination. The legal question is whether that sequence, and the lack of a meaningful investigation, amounts to unlawful retaliation.”

This particular case is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination and retaliation, as well as under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Code § 1102.5. The lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay or reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief, including policy changes, training, and the creation of independent reporting channels for discrimination and retaliation complaints.

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
Wanda Williams v. Lighthouse Document Technologies, Inc.
Case No. 2:25-cv-02686

The Winter 2026 session, titled “Good Business Practices & Preventing Problem Employees,” will take place on Thursday, March 26, from 5:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. at the Massachusetts School of Law, Room 204. Food will be provided.

The night will begin with welcoming remarks by Michael L. Coyne, Dean of Massachusetts School of Law, and continue with instruction from a team of MSLAW business and legal experts. Topics will include:

• Establishing Systems for Documenting Performance and Discipline (Michael Leamy – Professor of Business)
• Harassment, Bullying, Violence, and OSHA’s General Duty Clause (Paula Colby-Clements – Professor of Law)
• Piercing The Corporate Veil (Joseph Devlin, Professor of Law)
• Agent Liability on Instruments (Amy Dimitriadis – Professor of Law)
• Mental Health Issues in the Workplace (Shane Rodriguez – Professor of Law)

The Winter 2026 session will be the 6th installment in The Cummings Business Law Seminar Series in partnership with MSLAW to educate the public on the interplay between business and law.

The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. Prospective attendees can scan the QR Code below to sign up, or RSVP directly to Diane Sullivan at dianes@mslaw.edu.

“This is the most outrageous set of circumstances I have ever encountered,” said attorney Scott A. Snyder of The Snyder Law Group. “We have direct video evidence showing the child abuse. The owners were aware of what was happening and did nothing. They turned a blind eye. Instead of protecting children, they chose silence and concealment.”

Abuse Reported, Evidence Ignored, Whistleblower Fired

According to the lawsuit, a staff member notified on-site ownership of the abuse on December 13, 2024, and provided video evidence. Rather than removing the caregiver, alerting parents, or contacting authorities, ownership allegedly instructed staff not to inform families and allowed the caregiver to remain in the infant classroom.

A criminal investigation began on February 20, 2025, when an Assistant Director contacted the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office after repeatedly raising concerns internally. She provided investigators with surveillance video documenting an assault. Shortly after management learned law enforcement had been notified, the whistleblower was terminated.

Limited Video Reveals Widespread Abuse

Investigators reviewing the small amount of footage preserved by the center—roughly twenty days—identified abuse involving four separate children. Each family that pursued criminal charges had a child recorded being abused multiple times. Upon information and belief, the actual number of incidents was substantially greater, but earlier footage was not retained.

History of Prior Incidents and Failed Safeguards

The lawsuit alleges the franchise owners had prior knowledge of violent conduct by the caregiver, Wendy Jones.

• In 2021, Jones admitted to shaking an eighteen-month-old child; she received only a brief suspension and anger-management requirements.
• In 2023, a child in her care suffered significant facial injuries that the facility’s director, Dana Barnhart, labeled accidental, and the parents were not notified until pickup.

Despite these incidents, Jones remained assigned to the infant room. The complaint asserts that owners Dana and Scott Barnhart failed to remove the caregiver, protect the children, or implement adequate safety measures. It further alleges systemic failures by the franchisor, Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising, LLC, and its parent company, Essential Brands, Inc., including insufficient training, negligent oversight, and dangerous retention practices.

Defendants and Claims

The defendants named in the complaints include:

• Kiddie Academy of Kent Island
• D. Barnhart, LLC
• Dana and Scott Barnhart
• Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising, LLC
• Essential Brands, Inc.
• Wendy Jones

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of two families, allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, 11 battery, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence.

Criminal Outcomes

The investigation resulted in criminal charges against both Wendy Jones and the facility’s owner and on-site manager, Dana Barnhart. Jones resolved her case through a guilty plea and received a lengthy prison sentence. Barnhart’s case was placed on the stet docket, subject to conditions requiring that she have no direct childcare or supervisory role, and that the facility undergo monthly compliance visits by the Office of Child Care. Despite these restrictions, Kiddie Academy corporate has continued to permit Barnhart to own and operate the franchise.

Media Availability

Attorneys Scott A. Snyder, Michael B. Snyder, and Matthew J. Plessinger of The Snyder Law Group are available for interviews this week. The plaintiff families request privacy and will not participate in interviews.

Individuals With Relevant Information

Anyone with information related to abuse at Kiddie Academy is encouraged to contact The Snyder Law Group.

CASE INFORMATION

Baltimore City Circuit Court
Nicholas Peter, et al. vs. Kiddie Academy of Kent Island, et al.
Case No. C-24-CV-25-010255

In mid-2025, the VA announced a change to its rules regarding community care services. Under the previous rule, a veteran and their doctor had to decide whether the veteran would benefit from access to a non-VA community care program, and then submit that decision for review from a second VA doctor. Only if a second doctor approved the plan would the VA pay for non-VA community care assistance.

Under the new rules, veterans seeking help from community care programs don’t have to go through the extra step of having a second doctor review the plan. The VA will cover community care costs from non-VA providers as long as the veteran and their referring medical provider agree that the care is in the veteran’s best interest.

To enact this change, the VA relied on language from the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. The law, passed in January 2025 and signed by then-President Joe Biden, seeks to improve veterans’ lives in several ways. Topics covered in the Dole Act include the disability claims process, job training and employment, homelessness, mental health services, and at-home care for aging and disabled veterans.

Home- and community-based services have long been a part of the care system for aging and disabled individuals, including veterans. These services allow a veteran to live at home and to navigate their local community, building the relationships and familiarity proven to support mental and physical health more effectively than institutional care does. The new rule makes it easier for veterans to access community-based services.

“Access to community care is an essential part of daily life for many disabled veterans,” says veterans benefits attorney David W. Magann. “To have the VA recognize that is a real win for Florida veterans.”

The milestone comes amid steady consumer demand for legal recourse under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly referred to as the lemon law. The law provides protections for individuals who purchase or lease vehicles that repeatedly fail to meet reliability and safety standards. Attorneys at Wirtz Law APC say their consistent casework and vigilance in tracking legal developments have played a key role in achieving this record amount for clients.

“In each case, our primary objective is to ensure consumers receive the protection and remedies guaranteed by law,” said Richard Wirtz, managing attorney at Wirtz Law APC. “This total is a reflection of the firm’s ongoing commitment to helping clients navigate the challenges of repeated auto defects and warranty disputes.”

Lemon law attorneys at Wirtz Law note that regular legislative and regulatory updates are integral to the firm’s approach. Legal teams routinely review court decisions, statutory amendments, and regulatory guidance to ensure clients are advised on the most current legal protections and strategies. This commitment to staying informed, the firm says, has contributed to both the volume and success of recent cases.

“In a legal environment that is constantly evolving, it’s essential to remain informed and prepared,” Wirtz said. “Our team prioritizes continuing education and internal discussion so that we are ready to advocate effectively as new regulations and case law emerge.”

Industry observers report that lemon law claims in California have increased in tandem with heightened consumer awareness and ongoing challenges within the automotive sector, including supply chain delays and a rise in vehicle recalls. Wirtz Law APC’s $70 million achievement underscores the continuing demand for representation and guidance in resolving disputes over defective vehicles.

As the year concludes, Wirtz Law APC maintains its focus on protecting consumers’ rights under California’s lemon law, ensuring that individuals have access to remedies and representation when facing persistent vehicle defects. The firm’s achievement marks not just a financial milestone, but a continued commitment to serving consumers throughout California.

Major changes in various states, law schools, and other organizations include:

New Jersey launches state Department of Veterans Affairs. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy recently signed a law creating a Department of Veterans Affairs within the state government of New Jersey. The department will separate from the existing Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, with independent leadership.

Nebraska works harder to prevent veteran suicides. Nebraska’s recently-passed law seeking more information on preventing suicides includes the creation of a suicide mortality review team within the Nebraska Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Collier County, Florida advances plans for a new veterans nursing home. Florida’s Department of Veterans Affairs and Collier County are working together to plan a new 120-bed nursing home specifically for veterans in the county. Officials say they could break ground on the project as soon as early next year.

Connecticut’s annual Veterans Stand Down event provides essential assistance. Connecticut recently held its annual Stand Down event, which seeks to provide the state’s 100,000 veterans with access to healthcare, employment, clothing, legal, mental health, and vehicle assistance.

Campbell Law School opens Veterans Legal Clinic for North Carolina veterans. Campbell Law School in down Raleigh, North Carolina recently opened the doors of its Veterans Legal Clinic. The clinic offers pro bono representation and advocacy for veterans challenging their discharge classifications – a process that is often necessary to access benefits, status, and services.

VA awards grants to fight homelessness among veterans. The VA recently announced that it has awarded over $818 million in grants intended to fight homelessness among veterans. The grants helped 235 organizations throughout the US provide funding to support veterans’ access to affordable housing, health care, and child care.

While veterans benefits are overseen by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs, accessing benefits can also mean navigating state law and local programs. For help, speak to an experienced veterans benefits lawyer.

According to the filing, Dr. Dulaney joined DuSable after nearly two decades of service at Chicago State University, where she chaired the African American Studies program. She alleges that during her tenure at DuSable, she developed major educational programs, including the museum’s Annual Juneteenth celebration, a reinstated Kwanzaa program, a touring Emmett Till exhibition, and DuSable’s first-ever children’s exhibit.

The complaint states that beginning in 2022, Dr. Dulaney raised concerns about budget transparency, restricted-fund compliance, and the diversion of funds earmarked for educational programming. The lawsuit alleges that after she questioned financial practices and filed formal grievances regarding workplace conduct, she experienced escalating exclusion, hostility, and retaliation.

The lawsuit further alleges that after Dr. Dulaney reported her concerns to the Chicago Office of the Inspector General, the Mayor’s Office, and the office of Alderman Jeanette Taylor, she was terminated on October 3, 2025, under what she asserts was the false pretext of “restructuring.”

In her lawsuit, Dr. Dulaney seeks reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, civil penalties under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and attorney’s fees. She is also seeking injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations.

“Dr. Dulaney’s complaint describes a pattern of retaliation that began when she attempted to safeguard public and philanthropic funds and ensure compliance with the law,” said Justin DeLuca, counsel for Dr. Dulaney and attorney at Ellis Legal P.C. “Whistleblowers must be protected, especially when the integrity of public-serving institutions is at stake.

The defendants have not yet filed a response to the lawsuit. All allegations described in the complaint are claims made by the plaintiff and have not been adjudicated by the Court.

About Dr. Kim L. Dulaney

Dr. Dulaney is an author, educator, and longtime cultural leader in Chicago. Prior to her role at DuSable, she served as a Professor of African American Studies at Chicago State University, where she led the program for many years.

CASE INFORMATION

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
DR. KIM L. DULANEY v. THE DUSABLE BLACK HISTORY MUSEUM AND EDUCATION CENTER AND PERRY IRMER
Case No. 2025L014722

Mr. Leal had previously been convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (fentanyl) in the 282nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County.

In a challenge brought by Ordiway PLLC, the defense argued that the trial record affirmatively showed only eleven jurors were empaneled and sworn. Under the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a felony jury must consist of twelve persons unless that right is expressly waived by the defendant.

The State argued that the issue was forfeited because the defense did not object during the trial. Nevertheless, the Fifth Court of Appeals rejected this argument. In the opinion authored by Justice Mike Lee, the Court held that the right to a twelve-person jury is fundamental and cannot be waived by silence.

“The record matters,” Justice Lee wrote in the Court’s opinion. “We cannot assume there were twelve jurors when the record shows only eleven. Therefore, we hold that Leal’s conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional right to a jury consisting of twelve jurors.”

Brett Ordiway, lead appellate counsel for Mr. Leal, commented on the significance of the ruling:

“This decision reaffirms that the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Texas Constitution are non-negotiable. While the charge in this case was serious, the integrity of the jury system requires that every felony defendant be tried by a full jury of twelve, unless they explicitly agree otherwise. We are pleased that the Fifth Court of Appeals recognized this structural error and upheld the rule of law.”

The case, Richard Eric Leal v. The State of Texas (No. 05-24-00446-CR), has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

CASE INFORMATION

The Fifth Court of Appeals
Richard Eric Leal v. The State of Texas
No. 05-24-00446-CR