Rudalavage v. PPL Elec. Util. Co.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and remanded for the entry of an order precluding the Munley firm and its attorneys from representing the plaintiff. This case is nearly identical to — and indeed seems as though it could have been consolidated with — Darrow v. PPL Elec. Util. Co. issued weeks earlier. As in Darrow, the Court reviewed Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 in determining that the Munley firm had a conflict of interest in representing the plaintiff because an attorney that worked for that firm had previously worked for a law firm that represented PPL in defending numerous personal injury lawsuits. The Court analyzed the factors enumerated in Dworkin v. General Motors Corp., 906 F. Supp. 273 (E.D. Pa. 1995), before concluding that the Munley firm did not meet its burden of establishing compliance with Rule 1.10(b). As such, it was disqualified from representing the plaintiff.

Search entire site by keyword...

Search for Summaries by Hashtag...

Past Opinion Summaries