Firm Ripped Over 'Ploy' to Keep Malpractice Case in Home County
"There is no danger of duplicative judgments because the issues are not related," Bowes said. "One involves whether the agreements, especially the revised contingent fee arrangement, are valid. The other issue is whether [the firm] committed malpractice and other improper conduct in inducing Jacqueline to execute the documents in question."
Rupert's attorney, Nernberg of Nernberg & Associates in Pittsburgh, said the Superior Court correctly perceived the nature of the declaratory judgment action.
"We thought [the opinion] was very critical of the firm," Nernberg said. "We were surprised that the trial court" had agreed to coordinate the cases in Butler County.
"This action was aimed at giving the Butler County Common Pleas Court the chance to take the case out of Allegheny County and give the firm the home-field advantage," he said.
The attorney for Dillon McCandless, Jay D. Marinstein of Fox Rothschild in Pittsburgh, could not be reached for comment at press time.
(Copies of the 19-page opinion in Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham v. Rupert, PICS No. 13-2730, are available from The Legal Intelligencer. Please call the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 800-276-PICS to order or for information.) •