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.
This content has been archived.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]
