Legal Opinion

Rothman v. Fillette

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 29, 1983No. 3 E.D. Appeal Docket 1983PublishedCited by 91 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIX, Justice.

We are here called upon to resolve the difficult problem of who must bear the burden of loss between innocent parties where the attorney for one of the parties has acted beyond the scope of his authority and has misappropriated funds. This appeal reflects the wake of hardship that *263follows from an attorney’s failure to meet the standard of trust required of his office. Mindful of the adage that hard cases make bad law, we are constrained to conclude that the innocent client must bear the brunt of his counsel’s errant behavior.

I

Appellee, Philip Rothman, was involved in an…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  3. Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. Archbishop v. KARLAKSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  5. Pennwalt Corporation v. Plough, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by91 opinions

  1. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Tiernan v. DevoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
  3. J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Geniviva v. FriskSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Matter of LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API