Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
2025-01240 · Lackawanna County
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Proceeding pro se, Tufano brings a legal-malpractice claim against his former attorney Jeffrey Davis, Esq., alleging that Davis — retained to represent him in an earlier federal action before U.S. District Judge Nelson S. Román — failed to notify him of court proceedings, resulting in a default judgment the court would not vacate, and that Davis's later conduct, including personal phone calls and alleged physical threats, suggested “ill intentions.” He pleads civil conspiracy, alleging Davis secretly worked in the interest of the opposing party, Paul Saladino, MD, to defraud him of his assets, and a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241 framed around the loss of his Seventh Amendment jury-trial right through the default judgment.
He seeks an order requiring Davis to cover his legal expenses arising from the alleged malpractice. A companion malpractice suit against Davis in New York state court (C094), filed six days later, was dismissed in May 2025 for lack of jurisdiction.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail)
Research notes: Direct LPA portal lookup found only 3 docket entries total (Verified Complaint and a companion Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, both 2/12/2025; an Affidavit of Service 4/16/2025), with no further activity recorded through 8/18/2026 -- no disposition entered. A companion malpractice suit against the same defendant, C094 (New York State Supreme Court), was separately filed 6 days later and dismissed 5/15/2025 for lack of jurisdiction.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed C004 in Lackawanna County against Jeffrey Davis, Esq. Only 3 docket entries (the Verified Complaint and a companion Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, both filed the same day, plus an Affidavit of Service two months later) have been recorded, with no further activity through 8/18/2026; no disposition has been entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
starting with Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer that screwed me over in court, committing legal malpractice, helping the opposing council instead of actually helping me and defending me.
Names Jeffrey Davis, a tracked defendant, and states the substance of the legal-malpractice claim pleaded against him, including the allegation that he assisted opposing counsel. The video names no case or court.
Why this classification: It reports a result, being screwed over in court, rather than a filing decision, and the mapping to a particular case rests on the party and claim theory alone, which fits Moderate.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗So, this is the lawyer that screwed me over in my case against Paul Saladino.
Establishes the relationship that connects two tracked disputes. The dispute-group record describes the Starowicz / arbitration / Davis grouping as arbitration-centred. This states plainly that Davis represented him in the Saladino matter, which is what a recorded secondary source independently reports from the other side. The link between the two disputes runs through shared counsel.
Why this classification: Identifies his former counsel in the Saladino matter, who is himself a defendant in a tracked case.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗He didn't file the correct motions. He didn't do what he should have at certain points and ultimately led to me getting a default in the case. And he's refusing to admit his malpractice or wrongdoing.
The plaintiff's own account of why C100 went to default — attorney malpractice. This sits in direct tension with the court record: the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” records C100's finding that the defaults were willful and that no meritorious defense was shown, and the case tracker records final judgment entered with a damages award. Two accounts of the same default, one a public statement and one a court finding, and this project's evidence-layer rule keeps them in separate categories. Recorded, not adjudicated.
Why this classification: Attributes the default entered against him to his former counsel's failure to file the correct motions, and says he will not admit it.
Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗Although, we definitely need a bigger table uh for all these lunatic, selfish psychopaths conspiring against me. I don't think K Scammy and Timothy Herth deserve to be on this, but you got Jeff Davis, who is the first lawyer that screwed me over in the Saladino lawsuit.
Names four tracked parties in one breath and assigns each a role in a single alleged scheme, including the lawyer he describes as the first to have acted against his interests in the earlier proceedings.
Why this classification: An attribution of motive to parties spread across several tracked matters rather than a description of any filing he has made or intends to make. Three of the four names survive only as caption garbles, so the party identifications are research resolutions rather than clean transcript matches.
Watch at 00:02 — youtube.com ↗Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Davis (2025-01240)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-01240-tufano-v-davis/