As evidenced by a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling invalidating an alleged fee-splitting arrangement between a law firm and an outside consultant, questions about the proper way for attorneys to pay nonlawyers who help generate business still arise frequently. In fact, professional ethics lawyers said they’ve received an increasing number of such inquiries post-recession, as demand for legal services has failed to keep pace with a growing attorney population in Pennsylvania.
In a nonprecedential July 8 ruling in SCF Consulting v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, a Superior Court panel ruled 2-1 that a consultant to Philadelphia securities litigation firm Barrack, Rodos & Bacine was not entitled to an allegedly promised cut of the firm’s profits from cases he worked on because that type of fee-splitting agreement violates state ethics rules.
This content has been archived.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]
