Charles J. Prochaska IV

John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Gavin Wardzala (Associate-Milwaukee, WI), after obtaining dismissal of a negligence action at the circuit court level last year, successfully defended their appraiser client before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The case involved negligence claims against the appraiser, who had testified in a prior divorce hearing in which the plaintiff was a party. The court held that the appraiser was entitled to the absolute testimonial privilege because his testimony was relevant to issues before the divorce court. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the appraiser was immune from civil liability and that the plaintiff’s claims were barred from proceeding. As a result of this successful defense raised at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, the client avoided the need for costly and time-consuming discovery and the retention of subject-matter experts.

Jana Farmer (Partner-White Plains, NY), Dara Elpren (Associate-New York, NY), and Adam Buchwalter (Partner-Madison, NJ) coauthored the April 14, 2026, update of “Art & Cultural Property Law 2026,” a global practice guide published by Chambers and Partners USA. The practice guide is prepared for general audiences and discusses topics that those interested in familiarizing themselves with U.S. Art Law would want to know. The Wilson Elser team provides a comprehensive overview of key areas of art and cultural property law, including artists’ rights over their work, plagiarism and copyright infringement, art authentication, cultural heritage and its protection, art sales (including the roles of art advisers and auction houses), photography and related legal protection, NFTs, and art inheritance and the tax implications of gifts and trusts. The guide remains a vital resource for general counsel and senior management, with contributors recognized among the top practitioners in their respective fields.

Kimberly Nelson (Associate-Las Vegas) has been appointed to the Board of Directors for the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers (LVDL) organization, where she’ll serve a two-year term. LVDL is an affinity bar for local civil defense lawyers. It provides a forum for professional development and mutual education through the exchange of ideas among counsel practicing in Las Vegas and throughout Clark County. LVDL is also committed to promoting cooperation, professionalism, and civility within the legal community while enhancing its members' skills and effectiveness.

Justin St. Louis (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) authored “Virginia’s Med-Mal Damages Cap Remains in Place Pending Review,” appearing in the April 13, 2026, posting of Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The article explains how Virginia lawmakers ultimately pulled back from a sweeping overhaul of medical malpractice law, opting instead for a more measured approach that preserves the current damages cap for now – while laying groundwork for future changes. Although earlier versions of SB 536 proposed dramatic increases to liability exposure (including doubling the cap and expanding claim timelines), the reconciled bill focuses on mandatory data reporting by insurers and self-insured hospitals to better inform future policy decisions. Justin highlights that, in the short term, this is a win for hospitals and health systems because “the existing damages cap schedule remains intact, and the malpractice liability exposure is unchanged for the foreseeable future.” However, the new disclosure requirements signal that lawmakers are preparing for renewed debate, Justin noting that the reporting framework is “an interim, data-gathering mechanism designed to inform – and likely precede – a future legislative overhaul of the cap.”

Oregon’s Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict that held PacifiCorp liable for various wildfires that burned over Labor Day weekend of 2020. The case centered on four different wildfires: the 242 Fire, Echo Mountain Complex Fire, South Obenchain Fire, and Santiam Canyon Fire—spanning over 2,000 parcels separated by over 100 miles. Plaintiffs who were affected by the fires brought a class action against PacifiCorp. The liability portion was tried first, and a jury determined that PacifiCorp “engaged in tortious acts or omissions in relation to certain of those wildfires….”  This liability verdict was reversed based on an erroneous jury instruction. The trial court had instructed the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” The instruction was deemed erroneous in the context of this class action “because certain evidence at trial, particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member,” held the Court of Appeals. Prejudice to PacifiCorp based on this error was established, and the verdict was reversed. This decision has significant implications. First, this may not be the end of the liability appeals as plaintiffs could seek further review from Oregon’s Supreme Court. Second, as reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting, the damages portion of the case is ongoing and more than 160 damages trials have been scheduled through 2027. Some damages trials have already concluded. With liability now in doubt, these damages trials may be delayed further.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the seminar "No Harm, But Still a Foul? Defending No-Injury Class Actions After LabCorp" at the 2026 DRI Business and Intellectual Property Litigation Super Conference, to be held April 15–17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Defendants increasingly face class actions premised on conduct that caused no actual injury – ranging from alleged product defects that never manifested to data breaches in which implicated information was neither used for identity theft nor fraud, nor exposed on the dark web. After the Supreme Court granted and then dismissed review in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, uncertainty remains about certifying classes that include members who lack Article III standing. David explores the current legal landscape for no-injury class actions and offers practical defense strategies, including standing challenges and constitutional arguments against awarding damages to unharmed class members.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

​Joseph Francoeur (Partner–New York) and Eve Mouzouris (Of Counsel–New York) obtained dismissal of an amended complaint asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, N.Y. General Business Law § 349, N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487, RICO, negligence, gross negligence, legal malpractice, unjust enrichment, prima facie tort, and conversion. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arose out of an underlying 2009 foreclosure action that was litigated over a ten-year period. Plaintiff brought the federal action on behalf of herself and a purported class of similarly situated New York residents. Our client represented the bank in the underlying foreclosure action, involving a mortgage held by the plaintiff on a property in Queens, New York. At the crux of plaintiff's suit were allegations that our client and the bank were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to miscalculate interest due and owing on a residential mortgage to obtain vastly inflated payouts from court-ordered foreclosure sales. Contrary to plaintiff's claims, the methodology utilized by our client for applying interest in the underlying foreclosure action was consistent with long-standing practices in the legal community and had been approved by referees and judges in a myriad of cases. Indeed, the methodology was approved in the underlying action and was not challenged by plaintiff or her counsel, despite multiple opportunities to do so. We filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed in their entirety on various procedural and substantive grounds. The Court issued a comprehensive decision addressing plaintiff's claims and concluded, as we had asserted, that all of them were time-barred. Critically, the Court credited our position that plaintiff herself conceded all causes of action began accruing on September 12, 2019 – the filing date of the Referee's Report of Sale – yet she did not commence this action until April 3, 2025, well beyond the applicable limitation periods for each claim. The Court further rejected plaintiff's equitable tolling arguments, finding that she failed to plead any affirmative acts of concealment by the law firm, that the interest calculations she challenged were publicly filed and disclosed on the record, and that she failed to allege any steps she took to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering her claims.   The Court also adopted our position that collateral estoppel independently barred plaintiff's various claims, holding that they rested entirely on allegations that the law firm filed fraudulent or deceptive documentation containing interest miscalculations in the underlying state court foreclosure action – issues the state court had already resolved against plaintiff when it determined the interest calculations and foreclosure were valid. Although the Court found that plaintiff's Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not barred by collateral estoppel because the question of the law firm's intent to deceive had not been previously litigated, that claim was nevertheless dismissed as time-barred.

Matthew Foree (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Changing Nature of Defending Class Actions in 2026” on April 21, 2026. This session examines the trends, judicial shifts, and emerging risks shaping class action defense in 2026. Matt will discuss how technology and recent rule and case-filing changes are transforming defense strategy, explore new approaches for managing exposure and leverage, and offer practical tactics for navigating a faster, more outcome- and data-driven litigation environment.

Cav. Nicholas R. Caiazzo (Partner-New York, NY) was named a recipient of the annual 2026 Long Island HERALD Top Lawyers of Long Island Award, which recognizes outstanding leaders in the legal profession across Long Island. Nick will be honored in the category of Complex Tort and General Casualty/Trial Attorney alongside fellow award recipients at the HERALD Top Lawyers of Long Island Awards Gala on April 22, 2026, at the Heritage Club at Bethpage in Farmingdale, New York. The annual awards highlight the vital role attorneys play in society, serving as defenders of justice, protectors of individual rights, and facilitators of legal processes. Through their advocacy and community involvement, these professionals promote accountability, safeguard civil liberties, and uphold the rule of law, making them indispensable to maintaining a just society.

Kimberly Nelson (Associate-Las Vegas) has been appointed to the Board of Directors for the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers (LVDL) organization, where she’ll serve a two-year term. LVDL is an affinity bar for local civil defense lawyers. It provides a forum for professional development and mutual education through the exchange of ideas among counsel practicing in Las Vegas and throughout Clark County. LVDL is also committed to promoting cooperation, professionalism, and civility within the legal community while enhancing its members' skills and effectiveness.

Jana Farmer (Partner-White Plains, NY), Dara Elpren (Associate-New York, NY), and Adam Buchwalter (Partner-Madison, NJ) coauthored the April 14, 2026, update of “Art & Cultural Property Law 2026,” a global practice guide published by Chambers and Partners USA. The practice guide is prepared for general audiences and discusses topics that those interested in familiarizing themselves with U.S. Art Law would want to know. The Wilson Elser team provides a comprehensive overview of key areas of art and cultural property law, including artists’ rights over their work, plagiarism and copyright infringement, art authentication, cultural heritage and its protection, art sales (including the roles of art advisers and auction houses), photography and related legal protection, NFTs, and art inheritance and the tax implications of gifts and trusts. The guide remains a vital resource for general counsel and senior management, with contributors recognized among the top practitioners in their respective fields.

John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Gavin Wardzala (Associate-Milwaukee, WI), after obtaining dismissal of a negligence action at the circuit court level last year, successfully defended their appraiser client before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The case involved negligence claims against the appraiser, who had testified in a prior divorce hearing in which the plaintiff was a party. The court held that the appraiser was entitled to the absolute testimonial privilege because his testimony was relevant to issues before the divorce court. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the appraiser was immune from civil liability and that the plaintiff’s claims were barred from proceeding. As a result of this successful defense raised at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, the client avoided the need for costly and time-consuming discovery and the retention of subject-matter experts.

Justin St. Louis (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) authored “Virginia’s Med-Mal Damages Cap Remains in Place Pending Review,” appearing in the April 13, 2026, posting of Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The article explains how Virginia lawmakers ultimately pulled back from a sweeping overhaul of medical malpractice law, opting instead for a more measured approach that preserves the current damages cap for now – while laying groundwork for future changes. Although earlier versions of SB 536 proposed dramatic increases to liability exposure (including doubling the cap and expanding claim timelines), the reconciled bill focuses on mandatory data reporting by insurers and self-insured hospitals to better inform future policy decisions. Justin highlights that, in the short term, this is a win for hospitals and health systems because “the existing damages cap schedule remains intact, and the malpractice liability exposure is unchanged for the foreseeable future.” However, the new disclosure requirements signal that lawmakers are preparing for renewed debate, Justin noting that the reporting framework is “an interim, data-gathering mechanism designed to inform – and likely precede – a future legislative overhaul of the cap.”

Oregon’s Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict that held PacifiCorp liable for various wildfires that burned over Labor Day weekend of 2020. The case centered on four different wildfires: the 242 Fire, Echo Mountain Complex Fire, South Obenchain Fire, and Santiam Canyon Fire—spanning over 2,000 parcels separated by over 100 miles. Plaintiffs who were affected by the fires brought a class action against PacifiCorp. The liability portion was tried first, and a jury determined that PacifiCorp “engaged in tortious acts or omissions in relation to certain of those wildfires….”  This liability verdict was reversed based on an erroneous jury instruction. The trial court had instructed the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” The instruction was deemed erroneous in the context of this class action “because certain evidence at trial, particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member,” held the Court of Appeals. Prejudice to PacifiCorp based on this error was established, and the verdict was reversed. This decision has significant implications. First, this may not be the end of the liability appeals as plaintiffs could seek further review from Oregon’s Supreme Court. Second, as reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting, the damages portion of the case is ongoing and more than 160 damages trials have been scheduled through 2027. Some damages trials have already concluded. With liability now in doubt, these damages trials may be delayed further.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the seminar "No Harm, But Still a Foul? Defending No-Injury Class Actions After LabCorp" at the 2026 DRI Business and Intellectual Property Litigation Super Conference, to be held April 15–17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Defendants increasingly face class actions premised on conduct that caused no actual injury – ranging from alleged product defects that never manifested to data breaches in which implicated information was neither used for identity theft nor fraud, nor exposed on the dark web. After the Supreme Court granted and then dismissed review in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, uncertainty remains about certifying classes that include members who lack Article III standing. David explores the current legal landscape for no-injury class actions and offers practical defense strategies, including standing challenges and constitutional arguments against awarding damages to unharmed class members.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

​Joseph Francoeur (Partner–New York) and Eve Mouzouris (Of Counsel–New York) obtained dismissal of an amended complaint asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, N.Y. General Business Law § 349, N.Y. Judiciary Law § 487, RICO, negligence, gross negligence, legal malpractice, unjust enrichment, prima facie tort, and conversion. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arose out of an underlying 2009 foreclosure action that was litigated over a ten-year period. Plaintiff brought the federal action on behalf of herself and a purported class of similarly situated New York residents. Our client represented the bank in the underlying foreclosure action, involving a mortgage held by the plaintiff on a property in Queens, New York. At the crux of plaintiff's suit were allegations that our client and the bank were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to miscalculate interest due and owing on a residential mortgage to obtain vastly inflated payouts from court-ordered foreclosure sales. Contrary to plaintiff's claims, the methodology utilized by our client for applying interest in the underlying foreclosure action was consistent with long-standing practices in the legal community and had been approved by referees and judges in a myriad of cases. Indeed, the methodology was approved in the underlying action and was not challenged by plaintiff or her counsel, despite multiple opportunities to do so. We filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed in their entirety on various procedural and substantive grounds. The Court issued a comprehensive decision addressing plaintiff's claims and concluded, as we had asserted, that all of them were time-barred. Critically, the Court credited our position that plaintiff herself conceded all causes of action began accruing on September 12, 2019 – the filing date of the Referee's Report of Sale – yet she did not commence this action until April 3, 2025, well beyond the applicable limitation periods for each claim. The Court further rejected plaintiff's equitable tolling arguments, finding that she failed to plead any affirmative acts of concealment by the law firm, that the interest calculations she challenged were publicly filed and disclosed on the record, and that she failed to allege any steps she took to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering her claims.   The Court also adopted our position that collateral estoppel independently barred plaintiff's various claims, holding that they rested entirely on allegations that the law firm filed fraudulent or deceptive documentation containing interest miscalculations in the underlying state court foreclosure action – issues the state court had already resolved against plaintiff when it determined the interest calculations and foreclosure were valid. Although the Court found that plaintiff's Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not barred by collateral estoppel because the question of the law firm's intent to deceive had not been previously litigated, that claim was nevertheless dismissed as time-barred.

Matthew Foree (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Changing Nature of Defending Class Actions in 2026” on April 21, 2026. This session examines the trends, judicial shifts, and emerging risks shaping class action defense in 2026. Matt will discuss how technology and recent rule and case-filing changes are transforming defense strategy, explore new approaches for managing exposure and leverage, and offer practical tactics for navigating a faster, more outcome- and data-driven litigation environment.

Cav. Nicholas R. Caiazzo (Partner-New York, NY) was named a recipient of the annual 2026 Long Island HERALD Top Lawyers of Long Island Award, which recognizes outstanding leaders in the legal profession across Long Island. Nick will be honored in the category of Complex Tort and General Casualty/Trial Attorney alongside fellow award recipients at the HERALD Top Lawyers of Long Island Awards Gala on April 22, 2026, at the Heritage Club at Bethpage in Farmingdale, New York. The annual awards highlight the vital role attorneys play in society, serving as defenders of justice, protectors of individual rights, and facilitators of legal processes. Through their advocacy and community involvement, these professionals promote accountability, safeguard civil liberties, and uphold the rule of law, making them indispensable to maintaining a just society.

Kimberly Nelson (Associate-Las Vegas) has been appointed to the Board of Directors for the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers (LVDL) organization, where she’ll serve a two-year term. LVDL is an affinity bar for local civil defense lawyers. It provides a forum for professional development and mutual education through the exchange of ideas among counsel practicing in Las Vegas and throughout Clark County. LVDL is also committed to promoting cooperation, professionalism, and civility within the legal community while enhancing its members' skills and effectiveness.

Jana Farmer (Partner-White Plains, NY), Dara Elpren (Associate-New York, NY), and Adam Buchwalter (Partner-Madison, NJ) coauthored the April 14, 2026, update of “Art & Cultural Property Law 2026,” a global practice guide published by Chambers and Partners USA. The practice guide is prepared for general audiences and discusses topics that those interested in familiarizing themselves with U.S. Art Law would want to know. The Wilson Elser team provides a comprehensive overview of key areas of art and cultural property law, including artists’ rights over their work, plagiarism and copyright infringement, art authentication, cultural heritage and its protection, art sales (including the roles of art advisers and auction houses), photography and related legal protection, NFTs, and art inheritance and the tax implications of gifts and trusts. The guide remains a vital resource for general counsel and senior management, with contributors recognized among the top practitioners in their respective fields.

John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Gavin Wardzala (Associate-Milwaukee, WI), after obtaining dismissal of a negligence action at the circuit court level last year, successfully defended their appraiser client before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The case involved negligence claims against the appraiser, who had testified in a prior divorce hearing in which the plaintiff was a party. The court held that the appraiser was entitled to the absolute testimonial privilege because his testimony was relevant to issues before the divorce court. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the appraiser was immune from civil liability and that the plaintiff’s claims were barred from proceeding. As a result of this successful defense raised at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, the client avoided the need for costly and time-consuming discovery and the retention of subject-matter experts.

Justin St. Louis (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) authored “Virginia’s Med-Mal Damages Cap Remains in Place Pending Review,” appearing in the April 13, 2026, posting of Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The article explains how Virginia lawmakers ultimately pulled back from a sweeping overhaul of medical malpractice law, opting instead for a more measured approach that preserves the current damages cap for now – while laying groundwork for future changes. Although earlier versions of SB 536 proposed dramatic increases to liability exposure (including doubling the cap and expanding claim timelines), the reconciled bill focuses on mandatory data reporting by insurers and self-insured hospitals to better inform future policy decisions. Justin highlights that, in the short term, this is a win for hospitals and health systems because “the existing damages cap schedule remains intact, and the malpractice liability exposure is unchanged for the foreseeable future.” However, the new disclosure requirements signal that lawmakers are preparing for renewed debate, Justin noting that the reporting framework is “an interim, data-gathering mechanism designed to inform – and likely precede – a future legislative overhaul of the cap.”

Oregon’s Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict that held PacifiCorp liable for various wildfires that burned over Labor Day weekend of 2020. The case centered on four different wildfires: the 242 Fire, Echo Mountain Complex Fire, South Obenchain Fire, and Santiam Canyon Fire—spanning over 2,000 parcels separated by over 100 miles. Plaintiffs who were affected by the fires brought a class action against PacifiCorp. The liability portion was tried first, and a jury determined that PacifiCorp “engaged in tortious acts or omissions in relation to certain of those wildfires….”  This liability verdict was reversed based on an erroneous jury instruction. The trial court had instructed the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.” The instruction was deemed erroneous in the context of this class action “because certain evidence at trial, particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member,” held the Court of Appeals. Prejudice to PacifiCorp based on this error was established, and the verdict was reversed. This decision has significant implications. First, this may not be the end of the liability appeals as plaintiffs could seek further review from Oregon’s Supreme Court. Second, as reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting, the damages portion of the case is ongoing and more than 160 damages trials have been scheduled through 2027. Some damages trials have already concluded. With liability now in doubt, these damages trials may be delayed further.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the seminar "No Harm, But Still a Foul? Defending No-Injury Class Actions After LabCorp" at the 2026 DRI Business and Intellectual Property Litigation Super Conference, to be held April 15–17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Defendants increasingly face class actions premised on conduct that caused no actual injury – ranging from alleged product defects that never manifested to data breaches in which implicated information was neither used for identity theft nor fraud, nor exposed on the dark web. After the Supreme Court granted and then dismissed review in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, uncertainty remains about certifying classes that include members who lack Article III standing. David explores the current legal landscape for no-injury class actions and offers practical defense strategies, including standing challenges and constitutional arguments against awarding damages to unharmed class members.