ADLER, BARISH, DANIELS, LEVIN AND CRESKOFF V. EPSTEIN
482 Pa. 416, 393 A.2d 1175 (1978).
NATURE OF THE CASE: Adler (P) appealed from an order of the superior court that on appeal
dismissed P's complaint for interference with contractual rights.
FACTS: From the formation of Adler (P) in February, 1976, through March of the next year,
Epstein (D) were salaried associates. In establishing P, its partners brought with them
approximately 1300 cases from their old law firm, Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, in which
they shared approximately half the profits, losses, and assets. D were salaried employees of
the Freedman firm at the time P was formed. D left Freedman and went to work for P. While
still working for P, D decided to form their own law firm and took several steps toward
achieving their goal. They retained counsel to advise them concerning their business
venture, sought and found office space, and early in March, 1977, signed a lease. Before
leaving they procured a line of $150,000 from First Pennsylvania Bank. D furnished bank
officials with a list of eighty-eight cases and their anticipated legal fees, several of
which were higher than $25,000, and together exceeded $500,000. Each case was a P case on
which D were working. D's employment relationship terminated on March 10, 1977. D continued
to use offices of P until March 19. During this time, and through April 4, when P filed its
complaint, D was engaged in an active campaign to procure business for his new law firm. D
contacted clients by phone and in person. D advised the P clients that he was leaving the
firm and that they could choose to be represented by him, P, or any other firm or attorney.
D mailed to the clients form letters which could be used to discharge P as counsel. and
naming D as counsel. D even provided self-addressed stamped envelopes. P sued D for a
tortuously interference with business relations and was granted preliminary relief and
entered a final decree enjoining D from his conduct up to a certain date and limiting
correspondence to announcing his new firm. The superior court reversed and the Supreme Court
allowed an appeal.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment