In a ruling that explored the ethical implications of practicing lawyers sharing fees with sitting judges, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that an Allegheny County trial judge who is suing his former law partners over the distribution of their now-defunct firm’s assets is not entitled to an accounting of contingent fee cases that were resolved following the firm’s dissolution.
The court ruled that while a record must first be established as to whether the judge and his former law partners had an agreement in place governing the distribution of post-dissolution contingent fees, it’s possible the judge would be precluded from accepting those fees anyway under Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a), which bars attorneys and law firms from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.
This content has been archived.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]
