Ellis v. Department of Industrial Accidents, 977 N.E.2d 49

Petitioners, licensed Massachusetts attorneys, challenge two workers’ compensation provisions: G.L. c.152, §7C (senior judge can suspend a practitioner’s right before the department) and 452 Code Mass. Regs. §1.19(3) (bar fees if a full settlement is offered five days before hearing).
They contend §7C violates art. 30 separation of powers; §1.19(3) conflicts with G.L. c.152, §13A(5) (fee entitlement when insurer contests and employee prevails).
Disciplinary proceedings arose from Packard and Ferreira matters where insurers offered full payment without fees, petitions proceeded to hearing, fees were denied, and the senior judge suspended two attorneys in Ferreira.
Packard’s case: insurer offered fifteen percent more based on medical exam; administrative judge denied fees under §1.19(3) and penalties occurred; issues of communication and professional conduct arose.
Ferreira’s case: insurer offered psychiatric benefits without fees; discipline followed for alleged improper conduct; suspensions were imposed by the senior judge; matters were referred to the court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney discipline by the senior judge violates art. 30	Ellis/Benoit argue §7C improperly assigns judicial power to an executive officer (senior judge).	The department’s power to discipline ‘any person’ extends to attorneys.	Invalid: §7C as applied to attorneys violates art. 30.
Regulation §1.19(3) conflicts with §13A(5)	Regulation deprives fees where insurer settles five days before hearing after contesting a claim.	§13A(5) governs fee entitlement; regulation consistent with legislative history and goals.	Valid interpretation of §13A; regulation stands.
Scope of statutory/regulatory review	Regulation unjustifiably shifts regulatory power into executive branch.	Regulation interprets statute to promote efficiency and deter protracted litigation.	Agency deference warranted; regulation permissible.

First Justice of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep’t v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep’t, 438 Mass. 387 (2003) (core judicial powers and separation of powers limits on legislative encroachment)
Collins v. Godfrey, 324 Mass. 574 (1949) (control of membership in the bar vested in the judiciary)
Opinion of the Justices, 279 Mass. 607 (1935) (judicial control of admission/removal of attorneys is inherent)
DiLuzio v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Local 274, 391 Mass. 211 (1984) (limits on legislative intrusion into judicial functions)
Rival’s Case, 383 Mass. 172 (1981) (legislative reform of attorney fees to curb litigation incentives)
Spaniol’s Case, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 437 (2012) (historical context for 13A fee structure and legislative goals)