A Shift Away From Exclusive Regulation of Attorney Conduct by the Courts?
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.
August 09, 2017 at 04:51 PM
5 minute read
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.
The petitioner in Yocum filed a legal challenge on the grounds that Article V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution gives the Supreme Court exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. Thus, she argued, the only body with the authority to issue the restrictions at issue in was the court, and not the legislature.
This content has been archived.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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Matt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute read
Matt's Corner: Contributory Negligence Can Be a Bar to Legal Malpractice Recovery
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
