Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawyerliabilitytrialsummary judgmentproduct liabilityappellant
contractlawyerappealtrialsummary judgmentappellantappellee

Related Cases

Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1288, 1997 Fed.App. 0094P
View Case »
Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103
View Case »
Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S. 155, 69 S.Ct. 425, 93 L.Ed. 569
View Case »
Hunydee v. U.S., 355 F.2d 183, 17 A.F.T.R.2d 262, 66-1 USTC P 9137
View Case »
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wishnefsky v. Riley and Fanelli, P.C., 799 A.2d 827, 2002 PA Super 153

Facts

The dispute arose from an alleged oral contract between the law firm Riley and Fanelli, P.C. and the non-lawyer Appellant regarding a fee-splitting arrangement. Appellant claimed that the law firm agreed to pay him a forwarding fee for cases he referred but stopped payment after receiving significant fees from a product liability case. Additionally, Appellant alleged a breach of a second oral contract for a salary and severance, asserting that the law firm engaged in fraudulent conduct to induce his agreement.

The basis of this case is an alleged oral contract between Appellee, a law firm, and Appellant, a non-lawyer, governing a fee-splitting arrangement.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the non-lawyer could enforce the fee-splitting agreement and whether the exception to the rule prohibiting fee-splitting between lawyers and non-lawyers applied.

Appellant raises two issues in this appeal, first arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment *829 in favor of Appellee based on the doctrine of in pari delicto.

Rule

Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 prohibits the sharing or splitting of fees between a lawyer and a non-lawyer, aimed at maintaining a lawyer's independent professional judgment and protecting the legal profession from unauthorized practice.

Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 prohibits the sharing or splitting of fees between a lawyer and a non-lawyer.

Analysis

The court applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, determining that the non-lawyer's agreement with the law firm was unethical and therefore unenforceable. The court noted that even if the non-lawyer was initially unaware of the agreement's impropriety, he later learned of it and continued to engage in the same conduct. The court emphasized that the public interest in upholding ethical standards outweighed any individual claims of the parties.

The court applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, determining that the non-lawyer's agreement with the law firm was unethical and therefore unenforceable.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the law firm, concluding that the non-lawyer could not enforce the fee-splitting agreement.

The court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the law firm.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the law firm Riley and Fanelli, P.C., as the court found that the non-lawyer's claims were based on an unenforceable agreement that violated professional conduct rules.

The prevailing party was the law firm Riley and Fanelli, P.C., as the court found that the non-lawyer's claims were based on an unenforceable agreement that violated professional conduct rules.

You must be