2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

elevant to the proceedings, the communication was not protected by the judicial privilege. Id. at73.Q. No Liability Under UTPCPLIn Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvaniarecently held that (1) Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) does notapply to an attorney’s misconduct, and (2) the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules ofDisciplinary Enforcement provided the exclusive remedy for attorneys’ misconduct. The casearose from the admitted conversion of funds by an associate of Appellants’ Pennsylvania lawfirm in the underlying case, for which the firm was held vicariously liable. Id. at 1084.Appellee contended that deductions reflected on her settlement distribution schedule wereimproper. See id. at 1085. Appellee filed suit against the firm alleging, inter alia, negligence ofher former attorneys and violation by them of consumer protection laws (UTPCPL). See id. Abench trial was held on the sole issue of damages and the court found in favor of appellee as toall claims. See id.The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, and adopted its reasoning that“appellants’ actions did not arise from the practice of law, and therefore, appellants could not usetheir profession as a shield from the application of the UTPCPL.” Id.In addressing for the first time the applicability of the UTPCPL to attorney conduct, theSupreme Court stated that “[a]though we find the egregious conduct of appellants in this case tobe reprehensible, we decline to hold that Pennsylvania’s UTPCPL applies to an attorney’sconduct in collecting and distributing settlement proceeds. Applications of the UTPCPL underthese circumstances would encroach upon this Court’s exclusive power to regulate the practiceof law in this Commonwealth.” Id. at 1085-86.In reaching its holding, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out that the SuperiorCourt of Pennsylvania has held that the UTPCPL does not apply to treatment provided byphysicians and that it is clear that the legislature did not intend the Act to apply to medicalservices rendered by physicians. See id. at 1088. Extending this reasoning to professionalservices provided by attorneys, the Supreme Court held that the UTPCPL does not apply toservices provided by attorneys. See id.Additionally, to support its holding the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on theexclusive power granted to it by Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitute, whichgrants exclusive power to the Supreme Court to regulate attorney conduct. See id. at 1089. Thecourt relied on its exclusive constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law in theCommonwealth as support for its refusal to apply the UTPCPL to attorney conduct and, citingitself, reiterated that “[a]ny encroachment upon the judicial power by the legislature is offensiveto the fundamental scheme of our government.” See id. (citing Commonwealth v. Sutley, 378A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 1977)).Thus, the court held that the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional conduct and Rules ofDisciplinary Enforcement “exclusively address the conduct complained of in this case.” See id.172