Pinto v. Aberthaw Construction Co.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtGreenberg, J.
Compromise is often the solution to a dispute over the division of legal fees, but the law firms of Mc-Cormack 8c Epstein and Weinstein, Bernstein, 8c Burwick *254(Weinstein) failed to bridge the distance separating them. Under G. L. c. 152, § 15, a statute which governs the distribution of the proceeds of a third-party action as between the injured employee and the workers’ compensation insurer, see Taylor v. Trans-Lease Group, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 404 (1993), a dispute arose when the insurer’s counsel, McCor-mack & Epstein, claimed the lion’s share of the fee. Wein-stein, counsel to Pinto, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Richard v. ArsenaultMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
- Gagnon v. ShoblomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Bruso's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Daly's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- DiMartino v. Quality Industrial Propane, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pinto v. Aberthaw Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994