SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

165 A.3d 903, 2017 WL 444589, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 235
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. Read the opinion of the Court — 175 A.3d 273
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 1, 2017·No. 347 EAL 2016 (Granted)·Published

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

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

165 A.3d 903 (SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.