After more than two decades of litigation, a fee dispute in state court between former law partners has officially ended with a $3,900 award.

Last November, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the 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.

On April 28, the state Supreme Court denied the appeal filed by Tomasko and his firm, bringing the matter to a close.

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, 2019, 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 declined to comment.

In an email, Tomasko pointed to parallel federal litigation in which he received favorable rulings from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2003 and 2009, respectively.

"While it is good to get some closure on a litigation odyssey that has lasted 23 plus years and I am grateful that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pa. found Mr. Weinstock in contempt for failing to remit payment for an ERISA mandated retirement plan payment and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately awarded [$45,000] in attorney's fees in the same litigation against the Weinstock firm," Tomasko wrote, "…I am still at a loss to understand how in the related state litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County that court permitted the Weinstock firm to retain escrow monies representing 30% of the attorney's fees earned on the transferred files without any finding of wrongdoing whatsoever and absolutely no findings of fact/conclusions of law ever having been made by a trial court judge supporting such an award."