Money a county paid its solicitor for acting as interest arbitrator in a labor dispute will have to be repaid to the county, despite a resolution the county adopted agreeing to pay the attorney for the work, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
On July 16, a split en banc panel of the court held in County of Beaver v. Sainovich that because Myron R. Sainovich was furthering Beaver County’s objectives as both the county solicitor and as the interest arbitrator, the work constituted professional acts incident to his position as county solicitor. The 5-2 decision affirmed the trial court, which had held that the approximately $44,000 payment Sainovich and his firm received for his work on the arbitration panel violated the county code.
This content has been archived.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]
