Court Opinion

ID: 9637177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:59:49.770843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:54.180052
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
While the majority’s contractual analysis is sound, I think it overlooks the fundamental consideration of the case, which is the fiduciary relationship between attorney Angino and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (PMA). Angino totally abandoned his duty to his client PMA, so he should not be permitted to profit from his misfeasance.
After undertaking to represent the Wolfes in a personal injury action against the owner of land on which Mr. Wolfe was injured, Angino agreed to represent PMA, the workers’ compensation carrier of Wolfe’s employer, with regard to PMA’s statutory lien under 77 P.S. § 671, the right to recoup its compensation payments from an injured worker’s judgment against a negligent third party. In so doing, Angino undertook all the duties an attorney owes to his client as set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the practice of law in Pennsylvania. Such duties include, among others, the need to make full disclosure before representing multiple clients if there might be a conflict of interest between the clients or between the lawyer and one or more clients, Rule 1.7(b), and the prohibition against settling a case involving multiple clients without full disclosure and consultation with all clients, Rule 1.8(g).
At a minimum, attorney Angino neglected to fulfill these obligations to his client PMA. During settlement negotiations with the third-party defendant, Angino never advised PMA that a second option was available which would have provided $135,000 as an initial payment. Further, Angino admitted that he never contacted the third-party insurer to determine whether additional monies could be obtained to cover PMA’s lien. To the contrary, Angino candidly testified:
*79In this particular situation, there would have been no reason to have gotten more than our fee up front, because it would have gone to PMA. There is no kidding about the matter. If we had taken in, as an example, up front $150,000, there would have been $40,000 there that potentially PMA would have some call for, so as this case in its factual contents presented itself, once the client decided to go structure rather than deciding to go lump sum, the primary benefits to the client would be for us not to get anything but our fee.
Angino reiterated later:
Because that would have been a decision of an attorney and a carrier to say these are the attorneys fees and expenses, and this comes up front, and if any more is gotten it will just go to PMA.... Why would you want to get any more up front because basically you’d just be giving it to PMA[?]
I think such an.admission is shocking and unethical, coming, as it does, from an attorney who had agreed to represent PMA in regard to its statutory lien. For a 40% fee, Angino was to protect PMA’s statutory lien, but his intent was to avoid a settlement that would provide anything to PMA up front. It was extremely important to Angino that his $110,000 fee be paid entirely up front, but PMA, his client, did not, in his mind, have a similar interest in receiving payment at the time of settlement. It is difficult, to understand how the majority can accept such a standard of representation. I believe PMA, or any client, is entitled to much better protection of its interests. I think, therefore, the trial court was correct in awarding the entire escrow fund to PMA.
Thus I would affirm the order of the Superior Court.
NIX, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.