SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

165 A.3d 903, 2017 WL 444589, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 1, 2017

Docket347 EAL 2016 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.3d 903 (SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 165 A.3d 903, 2017 WL 444589, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 235 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Trial Court and Superior Court erred in sustaining [Respondent’s] demurrer to all Mounts of [Petitioner’s] Complaint, where, even assuming ar-guendo that the Compensation Plan was in violation of R.P.C. 5.4, Pennsylvania law, public policy and the interests of justice require such an agreement to be enforced because an attorney must not be shielded from liability, nor financially rewarded for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct[?]

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Trial Court and Superior Court erred in sustaining [Respondent’s] demurrer to all Mounts of [Petitioner’s] Complaint, where, even assuming ar-guendo that the Compensation Plan was in violation of R.P.C. 5.4, Pennsylvania law, public policy and the interests of justice require such an agreement to be enforced because an attorney must not be shielded from liability, nor financially rewarded for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct[?]

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.3d 903, 2017 WL 444589, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scf-consulting-llc-v-barrack-rodos-bacine-pa-2017.