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 EAKIN DECIDED: December 28, 2007 I dissent because I believe the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) applies here. This Commonwealth s Constitution vests this Court with the responsibility of supervising the practice of law. While this Court has guarded this power from the encroachment of the General Assembly on numerous occasions, it has also rejected calls for unrealistic micromanagement over provisions of general applicability. Shaulis v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 833 A.2d 123, 134 (Pa. 2003) (Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing PJS v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 723 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1999); Maunus v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 544 A.2d 1324 (Pa. 1988)). In PJS, we explained: The exclusive jurisdiction of this [C]ourt is infringed when another branch of government attempts to regulate the conduct of attorneys merely because of their status as attorneys. However, the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt is not infringed when a regulation aimed at conduct is applied to all persons, and some of those persons happen to be attorneys. PJS, at 178. The UTPCPL is not a law directed at regulating attorneys; rather, it is a law of general applicability. Appellants should not be exempted from the reach of the UTPCPL simply because of their status as attorneys. Accordingly, I dissent.

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.