Ex-Kline & Specter Lawyer Can't Contest Arbitrator, Court Says
After three other neutral arbitrators recused, Donald Haviland was unable to get retired Judge Mark Bernstein to recuse over ties to Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law.
March 23, 2018 at 05:01 PM
4 minute read
In a long-running dispute over litigation fees and an employment agreement, the Pennsylvania Superior Court refused to consider an appeal over an arbitrator's ties to defendant Kline & Specter and its co-founder, Tom Kline, through the law school where the arbitrator teaches.
Donald Haviland, who worked at Kline & Specter over a decade ago, had sought to disqualify retired Judge Mark Bernstein from arbitrating his lawsuit against the firm. Haviland's 2008 suit, which was stayed until 2016, alleged that Kline & Specter breached its employment agreement with regard to the fee disputes that followed his departure.
Haviland sought to disqualify Bernstein because he teaches at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Drexel University, which, as its name suggests, has received a large amount of money from Kline, of Kline & Specter.
But in an order March 22, the Superior Court quashed Haviland's appeal over Bernstein's role in the case.
In considering the appeal, the court compared the issue of arbitrator recusals to recusals of a judge.
“Indeed, this court has routinely held that a pretrial motion seeking to recuse a judge from further proceedings is not a final order,” the opinion, written by Judge Mary Murray, said. “Additionally, this court has stated that an appeal from the denial of a pretrial motion to recuse does not fall within any of the categories listed in Rules 311 (Interlocutory Appeals as of Right) or 313 (collateral orders) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and that consequently, appeals from such orders are premature.”
Bernstein is the fourth person appointed to serve as the neutral arbitrator in Haviland's case. Three before him recused, and two of those three did so after Haviland sought their recusal.
Haviland joined Kline & Specter in 2001 to manage the firm's class action practice, which was new at the time, the opinion said. He then left the firm in 2006.
Kline & Specter initiated arbitration with Haviland in 2007 over the fees Haviland won in two large settlements after leaving to start his own firm, Haviland Hughes. The firm contended that under a provision of his employment agreement, Haviland owed Kline & Specter one-third of the total fees he received from the settlements.
In that case, Haviland was ordered to pay his former firm $5.7 million—a third of his fees from the two settlements. But that was just the beginning of litigation and arbitration between Haviland and Kline & Specter.
In the case Bernstein is arbitrating, Haviland alleges that Kline & Specter breached another part of its own employment agreement—the next paragraph to be exact—which governed allocation of court costs and fees in the class action lawsuits he took with him to his new firm.
After three other neutral arbitrators recused, the court appointed Bernstein, who in February 2017 informed Haviland that he is an adjunct professor at the Kline School of Law. But, the opinion said, Bernstein did not think that job would create a conflict prohibiting him from being the arbitrator.
Still, Haviland moved for his recusal, which Bernstein denied.
“Bernstein maintained that he has taught at the law school since long before it was renamed the Thomas R. Kline School of Law and that Kline has no involvement with his teaching at the school,” Murray's opinion said.
Haviland filed a petition with the trial court seeking to enjoin Bernstein from arbitrating the case. That too was denied, and Haviland appealed to the Superior Court.
Haviland did not respond to a call seeking comment Friday. Neither did John Elliott of Elliott Greenleaf, who is representing him.
Kline also did not respond to a call seeking comment.
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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