Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 19, 2017No. 7 EAP 2017Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE BAER

This appeal presents the issue of whether a law firm that enters into an -unethical fee-sharing agreement with a non-lawyer consulting firm may invoke the law firm’s own ethical malfeasance as a defense in a subsequent contract action to enforce the agreement.1 The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”) holds that while the unethical nature of the fee agreement does not render the contract per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy, the fee agreement may, nonetheless, be unenforceable if the non-lawyer bears responsibility…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of PedrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Ballow Brasted O'Brien & Rusin P.C. v. Gary Logan, Docket No. 04-4925-CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
  4. Wishnefsky v. RILEY AND FANNELL, PCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Potter v. PeirceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1997

2 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