Case ID: a3d_165/html/0903-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCF CONSULTING, LLC, Petitioner v. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, Respondent
    No. 347 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    February 1, 2017
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Trial Court and Superior Court erred in sustaining [Respondent’s] demurrer to all Mounts of [Petitioner’s] Complaint, where, even assuming ar-guendo that the Compensation Plan was in violation of R.P.C. 5.4, Pennsylvania law, public policy and the interests of justice require such an agreement to be enforced because an attorney must not be shielded from liability, nor financially rewarded for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct[?]

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.