IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
ANGINO & ROVNER, : No. 68 MAL 2016
:
Petitioner :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Superior Court
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES :
P.C. AND MONSOUR ZARREII A/K/A :
MICHAEL ZARREII, :
:
Respondents :
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 & Rovner
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?
[68 MAL 2016] - 2