Read the PDF article here.

Read the PDF article LUBBOCK AVALANCHE-JOURNAL here.

Read the PDF article here.

Gina Passarella, The Legal Intelligencer

The remaining claim for abuse of process in a suit against Fox Rothschild and two of its partners has been withdrawn on the eve of trial, the firm said.

Jury selection was set to begin today in 22 Front Street v. Gorodetzer, a case filed by a condo owner who alleged the law firm and attorneys Robert S. Tintner and Brett A. Berman had interfered with its sale of several units.

The parties agreed to a mutual release of claims against one another, under which Fox Rothschild would not pay any damages to plaintiff 22 Front Street, the firm said.

Fox Rothschild General Counsel Thomas D. Paradise said 22 Front Street’s withdrawal of the remaining claim with prejudice was a “total vindication” for the firm.

“From the outset we were very confident that there was no merit to this action,” Paradise said. “We take these claims seriously and when we believe that we’ve done nothing wrong we will defend them to its ultimate conclusion, and in this case the conclusion was their withdrawal on the eve trial.”

Paradise said the firm had never offered to settle for anything other than a mutual release and the firm’s agreement not to sue 22 Front Street or its counsel for abuse of process or wrongful use of civil proceedings.

Fox Rothschild was represented in the case by George Bochetto of Bochetto & Lentz. Bochetto characterized the matter as a withdrawal by 22 Front Street, though he noted Fox Rothschild did give 22 Front Street a release of any claims against the condo owner or its counsel. Bochetto said he got word late Friday that the last remaining claim would be withdrawn.

“We consistently told them, and I repeated on Friday, that Fox Rothschild would never pay them a penny on their claims because they were frivolous claims and we were defending the case for however much and however long it needed to be defended,” Bochetto said.

Kevan F. Hirsch of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein represented 22 Front Street. He did not immediately return a call for comment.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer granted in June 2013 Fox Rothschild’s summary judgment motion on plaintiff 22 Front Street’s tortious interference and slander of title claims against the firm, Tintner and Berman.

Finding there were still issues of fact in dispute on the plaintiff’s claim for abuse of process, Glazer had denied summary judgment motion on that count.

The case stems from an underlying lawsuit Fox Rothschild filed on behalf of several homeowners in the luxury condo building who were upset 22 Front Street was billing a number of the units as “retirement” units.

The docket for the case against Fox Rothschild now notes that the matter has settled.

Avoid the specter of sanctions

Dragonetti and other litigation torts are an omnipresence haunting every practice. Avoid liability and learn to use litigation torts to your advantage by strengthening your knowledge of key elements, burdens, testimony and potential damages.

Review the full spectrum of causes of action

• Wrongful or malicious use of civil proceedings
• Abuse of process
• Malicious prosecution
• Common law-based claims

Learn the law affecting the action

• Statutory elements
• State court decisions
• Federal court decisions
• Restatements and secondary sources

Understand how each phase of trial affects you

• The scope and waiver of attorney-client privilege
• Burdens of proof against each party to the action
• Requirements and usage of expert testimony
• Erie issues
• Sanctions and damages
• Nuances of litigation
• The pervasive threat of litigation claims in other actions

Dates & Locations

12:30 pm to 3:45 pm; check-in and lunch begin at 12:00 pm

Philadelphia
Mon., Dec. 15, 2014
The CLE Conference Ctr.
Wanamaker Building
10th Fl., Suite 1010
Juniper St. entrance

Mechaniscburg
Tues., Dec. 16, 2014
PBI Conference Center
5080 Ritter Rd.
Rossmoyne Exit, Rt. 15

Click here for more information

We are proud to announce the selection of David Heim to the 2015 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers List.

Super Lawyers is a peer-review rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Super Lawyers is a national publication that spotlights the top 5% of practicing attorneys in the major practice areas in the region.

Congratulations to B&L’s David Heim, whose long and hard work for our client, Community Academy of Philadelphia Charter School, has resulted in saving the school’s five-year charter. Dave represented Community Academy through the charter renewal process, which resulted in an initial denial of a renewed charter for Community. Undeterred, Dave doggedly pursued Community’s rights through multiple administrative agencies and courts over several years. On April 28, 2015, the Appeal Board finally voted to renew Community’s charter, allowing the 1,200 students and 200 staff members to continue the good work they’ve been doing for thirty years. The decision is expected to be precedential in the area of charter school law.

Read more from The Inquirer “A victory for Community Academy, at least for now“

As previously reported, on April 28, 2015, after years of legal battles in multiple courts and administrative agencies, B&L’s David Heim procured a legal victory for B&L’s client, Community Academy Charter School, when the State Charter Appeal Board reversed the 2011 and 2013 decisions by Philadelphia’s School Reform Commission to nonrenew and revoke the School’s Charter. Reversing the School Reform Commission’s decisions, however, was not the end of the journey as there were still significant issues left open, including the start date of the new charter, the number of years the new charter would last, and many other issues over specific provisions. After months of negotiations, David successfully negotiated all of these issues and procured a five-year renewed charter for Community Academy, which was unanimously approved by the School Reform Commission at its November 19, 2015 public meeting. The Community Academy Board of Trustees also voted to approve the five-year charter during its recent public meeting, wherein Community Academy’s CEO included the following in the formal Meeting Minutes:

“Mr. Proietta stated that the negotiations took four months and several back and forths over details of almost every paragraph and specifics of language. He wished tothank the law firm of Bochetto and Lentz PC and particularly David Heim, Esq., who represented CAP before Court of Common Pleas, Commonwealth Court, and theCharter Appeal Board to successfully right the wrong that was done to CAP by the former members of the SRC.”

Read the PDF article here.

Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer

In a first-impression issue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawyer’s unjust enrichment claim against litigation funders, ruling that the fee agreement between them and the plaintiff could not be enforced.

A three-judge panel of the court ruled that a 2008 contingent fee agreement between attorney Bruce McKissock and client Polymer Dynamics was not valid, because it provided for unrelated parties with no legitimate interest in the litigation to benefit from the outcome. The amended fee agreement, which they entered while appealing a $12.5 million verdict in pursuit of a larger award, had said McKissock would receive a one-third legal fee, from which he would pay the unrelated parties who were funding the litigation.

“The requisite elements of champerty have all clearly been met in the present case,” Judge John T. Bender wrote in a Sept. 13 published opinion. “Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the 2008 fee agreement is invalid and, therefore, [McKissock] is not entitled to any fees under said agreement.”

Polymer Dynamics filed a lawsuit against Bayer Corp. in 1999, alleging that a malfunction in Bayer’s machinery caused Polymer to become insolvent. Polymer expected an award of at least $100 million, Bender’s opinion said, but the 2005 verdict was only $12.5 million. Both parties appealed—Polymer seeking a larger award, and Bayer arguing the $12.5 million verdict was excessive—but Polymer required money from investors to continue in the litigation.

The investors included a number of individuals, referred to in Bender’s opinion as the litigation fund investors, and Pafco Investment. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the verdict, Polymer gave the balance of the recovery amount, after taxes and fees, to Pafco, which then paid the individual investors. By that time, McKissock had withdrawn his representation of Polymer due to a conflict. So Polymer had paid legal fees to its new firm, Gross McGinley, and to Bochetto & Lentz, which represents Pafco.

In 2011, one of the creditors, through the entity WFIC, filed a complaint over the distribution of the litigation proceeds. McKissock filed an answer and new matter asserting his cross-claims, including the unjust enrichment claim against the investors.

With regard to WFIC’s claims, the trial court ruled that WFIC did not have a priority over other creditors. Several of McKissock’s claims were resolved at summary judgment in the investors’ favor, and some were dismissed as moot. McKissock’s unjust enrichment cross-claim was dismissed entirely at the trial court level, leading to his Superior Court appeal.

The WFIC claims and McKissock’s cross-claims were not the only litigation to arise out of the Polymer v. Bayer lawsuit. In addition to those, Polymer filed a legal malpractice suit against McKissock, in which summary judgment was granted in McKissock’s favor.

McKissock also filed a claim against Polymer for his fee. According to a 2011 opinion in that case, McKissock & Hoffman v. Polymer Dynamics, the only compensation McKissock’s firm received for its work on the Bayer lawsuit was a $25,000 payment, which was substantially less than the amount due pursuant to the fee agreement. But the trial court and Superior Court denied McKissock’s motion to compel arbitration in the fee dispute, and McKissock took no further action, according to court documents.

George Bochetto of Bochetto & Lentz, who represented Pafco, said he was “delighted” with the Superior Court’s most recent decision on the 2008 fee agreement.

“We maintained from the very beginning that it was an unenforceable contract,” Bochetto said.

Arthur W. Lefco of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin represented McKissock, who is now senior counsel at Marshall Dennehey.

“We were disappointed, but the court has spoken,” Lefco said. He said he will have to confer with McKissock over whether to seek an appeal at the Supreme Court level.

View story on The Legal Intelligencer.