Case Name: SCF CONSULTING, LLC, Petitioner v. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-02-01
Citations: 165 A.3d 903
Docket Number: No. 347 EAL 2016
Parties: SCF CONSULTING, LLC, Petitioner v. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, Respondent
Judges: Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 903–903

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

Opinion:
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.