Beyers, J. v. Richmond, Forceno & Arangio, P.C., Robert Arangio and Raymond P. Forceno (Dissenting Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-21-2007] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JANICE IANNECE BEYERS v. DONALD RICHMOND, FORCENO & ARANGIO, P.C., ROBERT ARANGIO AND RAYMOND P. FORCENO APPEAL OF: FORCENO & ARANGIO, P.C., ROBERT ARANGIO AND RAYMOND P. FORCENO : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 38 EAP 2006 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on June 27, 2005, (reargument/reconsideration denied August 26, 2005) at No. 1162 EDA 2004, affirming the Judgment entered on May 19, 2004 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 3278 January Term, 2002. ARGUED: April 16, 2007 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 28, 2007 I Join Mr. Justice Eakin s dissenting opinion and additionally note that core functions of legal representation were not implicated by Appellant s ancillary activity regarding the handling of the settlement proceeds. As this conduct does not involve the exercise of legal judgment, see generally Dauphin County Bar Ass n v. Mazzacaro, 465 Pa. 545, 553, 351 A.2d 229, 233 (1976) (discussing the boundaries of the practice of law in terms of understanding and applying legal principles and judgment), it falls more comfortably within the business aspects of the activities of a law firm, a distinction recognized by other courts. See, e.g., Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163, 168 (Wash. 1984) (ruling that the Washington consumer protection statute applied to certain entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of law, including how the price of legal services is determined, billed, and collected ); Daniels v. Baritz, 2003 WL 21027238, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2003) (distinguishing between a lawyer s actions arising out of the actual practice of law and his debt-collection practices, and holding that a claim that the latter activities violated the UTPCPL survived preliminary objections); cf. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 787-88, 95 S. Ct. 2004, 2013-14 (1975) (observing that the exchange of an attorney s services in examining a land title for money constitutes commerce for purposes of the Sherman Act and, as such, is a business aspect of the legal profession). But cf. Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100, 102 (Ill. 1998) (holding that the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act did not apply to a plaintiff s claim that her attorney charged excessive fees). [J-21-2007][M.O. - Fitzgerald, J.] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.