The Law Offices of Joseph Q. Mirarchi Legal Serv., P.C. v. Thorpe, PICS Case No. 17-1413 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2017) Beetlestone, J. (17 pages).
Plaintiff's complaint seeking to recover legal fees from a contingency fee agreement to represent defendants in a dispute with their property insurer was dismissed with prejudice because a prior court had determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the legal fees since he was terminated for unlawful activity--the unauthorized practice of law and the failure to disclose his suspension to clients--and the current action asserting breach of contract, detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment and other claims against defendants and others was barred by the final judgment that foreclosed his equitable or legal rights to a contingency fee. Dismissed.
September 22, 2017 at 02:29 PM
3 minute read
Contingency Fee • Unauthorized Practice of Law • Issue Preclusion • Claim Preclusion
The Law Offices of Joseph Q. Mirarchi Legal Serv., P.C. v. Thorpe, PICS Case No. 17-1413 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2017) Beetlestone, J. (17 pages).
Plaintiff's complaint seeking to recover legal fees from a contingency fee agreement to represent defendants in a dispute with their property insurer was dismissed with prejudice because a prior court had determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the legal fees since he was terminated for unlawful activity–the unauthorized practice of law and the failure to disclose his suspension to clients–and the current action asserting breach of contract, detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment and other claims against defendants and others was barred by the final judgment that foreclosed his equitable or legal rights to a contingency fee. Dismissed.
Plaintiff sought to recover legal fees from a contingency fee agreement to represent defendants in a dispute with their property insurer. Plaintiff negotiated a settlement offer with insurer but defendants did not accept the settlement and terminated his representation when they learned that he had been administratively suspended from the practice of law at the time he negotiated the settlement. They hired another attorney and accepted the agreement negotiated by plaintiff. One defendant was in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding and the dispute over the legal fees became intertwined with the settlement of the bankruptcy. The other parties to the bankruptcy refused to allocate a portion of the settlement to plaintiff, the funds were placed in escrow and plaintiff filed a motion seeking disbursement. The bankruptcy court denied the motion because plaintiff was terminated for unlawful activity, the unauthorized practice of law and the failure to disclose his suspension to clients, and was not entitled to the disputed legal fees. That ruling was appealed and plaintiff then filed breach of contract, detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment and other claims against defendants and the firm they hired to complete plaintiff's work, defendants' bankruptcy attorney, defendants' primary debtors and the attorney for those debtors. Those defendants all filed motions to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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 AllSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With Ogletree Deakins' $32K Bill for Failing to Comply With Court Orders
4 minute read'They Tried to Pay You. You Refused It': Attorney Faces Threat of Sanctions for Drawing Out Suit Against Kleinbard
4 minute readJudge Approves $433K in Attorney Fees for Servers in Restaurant Chain Wage Dispute
3 minute readTrending Stories
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