The practice of law in Pennsylvania has been traditionally regulated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. However, recent developments have called into question the presumption that only the court may regulate attorneys, suggesting that it is yielding at least some of that authority to the Pennsylvania legislature under certain circumstances.
In the recently decided case of Yocum v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, the court (in its original jurisdiction) considered the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. Sections 1101-1904 (the Gaming Act). The court considered the restrictions in the Gaming Act that prohibit employees—including attorneys—at the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board from soliciting, recommending or accepting employment with a licensed gaming facility for the period of two years after the termination of their employment with the board.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
