Angino & Rovner v. Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates P.C.

138 A.3d 610, 635 Pa. 505, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1204, 2016 WL 3244833

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 13, 2016
• Docket: 68 MAL 2016 (Granted)
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Zarreii and denying summary judgment to Angi-no & Rovner, P.C. where the facts are undisputed that Mr. Zarreii, an adult, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contingent fee agreement with Angino & Rovner, P.C. that required the payment of a 20% fee if Mr. Zarreii discharged the Angino & Rovner Law Firm and secured other counsel, particularly under circumstances where the Angino & Rovner Law Firm had prepared the underinsured motorist case completely to the point of selecting arbitrators and awaiting an arbitration hearing.

b. Are attorneys prohibited per se from including a reasonable fee recovery provision in contingent fee agreements that governs the termination of the attorney-client relations prior to the occurrence of the contingency.

c. Are discharged attorneys entitled only to the equitable remedy of quantum meruit for services rendered to former clients.

d. Is the quantum meruit equitable remedy for services rendered to former clients exclusive where a termination provision is included in a contingent fee agreement, and that provision is not challenged and established to be either excessive or unconscionable?