Managing Partner / Attorney · Eric C. Conn Law Firm
A Kentucky disability attorney grew one of the largest Social Security disability practices in the country by paying a federal administrative judge to approve his clients' cases — becoming both the advocate and the behind-the-scenes funder of the judicial decisions in his favor.
An attorney who nominally represented claimants before an administrative judge was simultaneously paying that judge — effectively controlling both sides of the adjudicative process his clients depended on.
Eric C. Conn ran one of the most prolific Social Security disability law practices in the United States, based in Pikeville, Kentucky. According to his 2017 guilty plea, Conn and Administrative Law Judge David Daugherty engaged in a years-long scheme in which Conn paid Daugherty more than $600,000 in cash and goods in exchange for Daugherty approving virtually all disability claims that Conn brought before him. Conn also fabricated medical evidence in thousands of cases, producing false physician assessments to support claims that would then be rubber-stamped by Daugherty. The scheme resulted in more than $550 million in fraudulent Social Security payments.
Conn built his practice by advertising aggressively and channeling tens of thousands of disability claims through a single judge — ALJ David Daugherty — who had an extraordinary approval rate for Conn's cases.
According to court documents, Conn paid Daugherty in cash and with other items of value to ensure Conn's cases received favorable rulings, regardless of whether claimants actually met disability criteria.
Conn fabricated physician assessments from compliant doctors, creating false medical records that supported claims that would then be approved by Daugherty without independent medical review.
As the attorney representing claimants, Conn nominally advocated for his clients — but simultaneously controlled the false evidence and the corrupt judicial process that determined the outcome.
An attorney who nominally represented claimants before an administrative judge was simultaneously paying that judge — effectively controlling both sides of the adjudicative process his clients depended on.
The relationship between an advocate and the decision-maker adjudicating that advocate's cases is a core conflict-of-interest question in legal and regulatory settings. Any financial relationship between a representative and the adjudicator deciding their cases is an undisclosed material conflict — regardless of the institutional setting.
ConflictCheck does not claim it would have definitively prevented any specific historical fraud. The purpose of this section is to illustrate the type of relationship conflict present in each case and how structured disclosure processes address that category of risk.
Conn pleaded guilty in 2017, then fled to Honduras before sentencing. He was apprehended in 2018. He was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison. ALJ Daugherty was also federally charged. Hundreds of Social Security recipients lost benefits when their cases were reviewed and found to be fraudulent.
Every case in this library began with a relationship that existed — undisclosed — before anyone was harmed. ConflictCheck helps map those relationships across your organization.