Case Name: ANGINO & ROVNER, Petitioner v. JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES P.C. and Monsour Zarreii a/k/a Michael Zarreii, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2016-06-13
Citations: 138 A.3d 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANGINO & ROVNER, Petitioner v. JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES P.C. and Monsour Zarreii a/k/a Michael Zarreii, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 138
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
ANGINO & ROVNER, Petitioner v. JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES P.C. and Monsour Zarreii a/k/a Michael Zarreii, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
June 13, 2016.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
a. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Zarreii and denying summary judgment to Angino & Rovner, P.C. where the facts are undisputed that Mr. Zarreii, an adult, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contingent fee agreement with Angino & Rovner, P.C. that required the payment of a 20% fee if Mr. Zarreii discharged the Angino & Rov-ner Law Firm and secured other counsel, particularly under circumstances where the Angino & Rovner Law Firm had prepared the underinsured motorist case completely to the point of selecting arbitrators and awaiting an arbitration hearing.
b. Are attorneys prohibited per se from including a reasonable fee recovery provision in contingent fee agreements that governs the termination of the attorney-client relations prior to the occurrence of the contingency.
c. Are discharged attorneys entitled only to the equitable remedy of quantum meruit for services rendered to former clients.
d. Is the quantum meruit equitable remedy for services rendered to former clients exclusive where a termination provision is included in a contingent fee agreement, and that provision is not challenged and established to be either excessive or unconscionable?