Credit: RomanR/Shutterstock.com

With over 20 years of litigation on the books, a Pennsylvania state appeals court has brought to a close a fee dispute between former law partners, ending in one receiving $3,900 from the other.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the $3,900 award by a Dauphin County judge to Ira H. Weinstock P.C. in a dispute with Tomasko & Koranda and Ronald T. Tomasko. Tomasko was formerly an attorney at the Weinstock firm.

The fee constituted Weinstock's 30% share of attorney fees in escrow from a workers' compensation matter, referred to as the "Cathy Wamsley fee" in Superior Court Judge Victor Stabile's Nov. 5 opinion.

Tomasko and his firm argued that the trial court erred in awarding Weinstock a 30% share because a workers' compensation judge concluded that Weinstock had been overpaid in the Wamsley matter.

Tomasko pointed to a finding in which the Workers' Compensation Bureau held that the Weinstock firm represented Wamsley in her workers' compensation matter from Oct. 21, 1991, through Dec. 30, 1996, Stabile said. But Wamsley ultimately agreed to a settlement negotiated by the Koranda firm in 1997.

"The bureau found that appellee played no role in the settlement negotiation. The bureau also found that appellee had received over $10,000.00 in fees in the Wamsley matter and was not entitled to further compensation," Stabile said. "The record, therefore, fully supports appellants' claim that they prevailed in this fee dispute in the worker's compensation matter. But appellants do not explain why the decision from the Worker's Compensation Bureau binds the trial court in this equity action."

Stabile continued, "Notably, the trial court at the hearing on the parties' competing sanctions motions, told the parties it did not believe it would be bound by the bureau's decision. Moreover, the issue of origination credit was not before the Worker's Compensation Bureau. Appellants have failed to establish that the outcome of the fee dispute before the bureau has any bearing on the outcome here."

Stabile said that although Weinstock failed in a lawsuit against the firm over contractual interference, that decision didn't apply to the fee dispute.

"Appellee's failure in the action at law did not preclude application of the trial court's 70/30 fee division. Presumably, appellants could have relied on the worker's compensation decision in support of a counterclaim in the action at law, had they chosen to litigate that action on the merits," Stabile said. "Instead, the parties proceeded in accord with the trial court's 70/30 formula with neither side successfully establishing another appropriate fee division. Thus, appellants have failed to establish that the trial court erred in applying the 70/30 formula to the Wamsley Fee."

Weinstock is represented by Joshua Lock, who did not respond a request for comment.

Tomasko said in an email, "While I am glad the 22 plus year ordeal might finally have come to an end, I am disappointed in the Superior Court's memorandum opinion regarding the disposition of the escrowed funds."