A Scranton personal injury firm has lost its bid to keep a fee dispute with a Pittsburgh firm from being litigated in Allegheny Court.

On May 18, a three-judge Pennsylvania Superior Court panel denied Scranton-based Pisanchyn Law Firm's efforts to keep the firm's dispute with Scanlon & Wojton in Lackawanna County. The decision affirmed the trial court's decision to transfer the case.

The case involves allegations that Michael Pisanchyn referred a case to Scanlon & Wojton attorney Matthew Scanlon, but Scanlon never paid Pisanchyn for the work and costs he'd put into the case before the referral.

Regarding the venue dispute, Pisanchyn contended that the case should be heard in Lackawanna because the attorney at his firm who had entered into the alleged agreement had been at the firm's Scranton office when the agreement was made over the phone.

However, Superior Court Judge Paula Francisco Ott, who wrote the appellate court's opinion, noted there was no evidence of a written agreement.

“This case was not a referral from Pisanchyn to Scanlon,” Ott said. “Therefore, assuming arguendo that there was an agreement, the trial court properly reasoned, 'the place where the offer was accepted in this case would appear to be Allegheny County, where the defendants were located when they allegedly accepted the offer.'”

Quinn Logue attorney John Quinn, who is representing Scanlon, said he fully expected the Superior Court to affirm the trial court's opinion.

“I thought the court adopting the trial court's reasoning was entirely correct,” Quinn said. “There was no contact with Scranton in Lackawanna County. Pisanchyn filed that for convenience. Not for anything else.”

According to Ott, Pisanchyn contended that he began representing three people involved in a motor vehicle accident in Susquehanna County. The clients signed a contingent fee agreement, and he eventually incurred more than $4,000 handling the case. However, the clients eventually sought to have Scanlon represent them in the case.

Pisanchyn subsequently notified Scanlon that he had a nearly $40,000 lien on the matter. Although the case settled in August 2015, Scanlon did not pay Pisanchyn and so the Scranton attorney sued, according to Ott.

The trial court noted that, during a hearing regarding venue issues, there was no dispute that Scanlon wasn't in Lackawanna when the alleged contract was formed, and that Scanlon testified he does not frequent Lackawanna County.

Pisanchyn countered that Scanlon must send a check to his office in Scranton, so Lackawanna was the proper venue for the dispute. He further cited the testimony of attorney Douglas Yazinski, who works at his firm. Yazinski said that, while he was in the Scranton office, he got a call from Scanlon in which the Pittsburgh attorney made an “oral agreement” to pay the money.

The trial court judge, however, said that, because the complaint failed to give details about when and how the agreement was executed, it would be “difficult to declare that venue is proper in Lackawanna County,” since Scanlon was never present in the northeastern county.

Ott agreed, saying that “because there is no clear evidence of a written or oral agreement, or a specific claim of quantum meruit, the trial court properly determined venue was proper in Allegheny county.”

Wilkes-Barre attorney Jason Provinzano, who represented Pisanchyn, did not return a call seeking comment.