Court Opinion

ID: 9765351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:00:51.516088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:09.182806
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN
dissenting.
I dissent because I believe the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) applies here.
This Commonwealth’s Constitution vests this Court with the responsibility of supervising the practice of law. “While this Court has guarded this power from the encroachment of the General Assembly on numerous occasions, it has also rejected
*673calls for unrealistic micromanagement over provisions of general applicability.” Shaulis v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 574 Pa. 680, 833 A.2d 123, 134 (2003) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing PJS v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 555 Pa. 149, 723 A.2d 174 (1999); Maunus v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 518 Pa. 592, 544 A.2d 1324 (1988)). In PJS, we explained:
The exclusive jurisdiction of this [C]ourt is infringed when another branch of government attempts to regulate the conduct of attorneys merely because of their status as attorneys. However, the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt is not infringed when a regulation aimed at conduct is applied to all persons, and some of those persons happen to be attorneys.
PJS, at 178.
The UTPCPL is not a law directed at regulating attorneys; rather, it is a law of general applicability. Appellants should not be exempted from the reach of the UTPCPL simply because of their status as attorneys. Accordingly, I dissent.