The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Recent Amendments to Rules 121, 903, 1113 and 1512

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

On April 9, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended the Official Note to Pa. R.A.P. 121 and Rules 903, 1113, 1512 to clarify that subdivision (e) of Rule 121 applies to calculating the deadline for filing cross-appeals, cross-petitions for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review.

Rule 121(e) (“Additional time after service by mail and commercial carrier”) provides that:

“Whenever a party is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party (other than an order of a court or other government unit) and the paper is served by United States mail or by commercial carrier, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.”

The official comment to Rule 121(e) expressly explains that this subdivision does not apply to the filing of a notice of appeal, a petition for allowance of appeal, a petition for permission to appeal or a petition for reconsideration or reargument because the deadlines for filing such documents run from the entry and service of an order, not a filing by another party.

However, confusion had arisen with respect to whether 121(e) applied to the filing of a cross-appeal, cross-petition for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review because the rules governing such submissions (Rules 903, 1113 and 1512) calculated the deadline within so many days of the “filing” (rather than service) of the initiating appeal or petition. (Compare Coney Island II Inc. v. Pottsville Area School District, 497 Pa. 373, 441 A.2d 747 (1982) and Malt Beverages Distribution Association v. PLCB, No. 54 MM 2009, 2009 Pa. Lexis 1613 (Pa. Aug. 6, 2009).)

The amendments to Rules 903, 1113, 1512 simply substitute “served” for “filed” in determining the filing deadline, bringing cross-appeals, cross-petitions for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review clearly within the application of Rule 121(e). The Official Note to Rule 121 was amended to expressly include such documents.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail mscott@grblaw.com.

Recent Amendments to Pa. R.A.P. 311 & 342

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

On Dec. 29, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Rules 311 and 342 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendments apply to Orphans’ Court orders entered on or after Feb. 13, 2012.

According to new Rule 342(a), an immediate appeal may be taken as of right from the following orders of the Orphans’ Court:

(1) An order confirming an account, or authorizing or directing a distribution from an estate or trust;

(2) An order determining the validity of a will or trust;

(3) An order interpreting a will or a document that forms the basis of a claim against an estate or trust;

(4) An order interpreting, modifying, reforming or terminating a trust;

(5) An order determining the status of fiduciaries, beneficiaries or creditors in an estate, trust or guardianship;

(6) An order determining an interest in real or personal property;

(7) An order issued after an inheritance tax appeal has been taken to the Orphans’ Court pursuant to either 72 Pa.C.S. §9186(a)(3) or 72 Pa.C.S. §9188, or after the Orphans’ Court has made a determination of the issue protested after the record has been removed from the Department of Revenue pursuant to 72 Pa.C.S. §9188(a); or

(8) An order otherwise appealable as provided by Chapter 3 of these rules.

Prior to the amendment to Rule 342, in order to file an immediate appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court making a distribution, or determining an interest in realty or personalty or the status of individuals or entities, the Orphans’ Court had to make a determination of finality when entering the order. According to the official note accompanying amended Rule 342, the prior rule was not working and was not being applied consistently. Thus, orders falling within subdivisions (a)(1) through (7) listed above no longer require the Orphans’ Court to make a determination of finality and are instead immediately appealable as of right.

With respect to Rule 311, following a 2005 amendment, orders determining the validity of a will or trust were appealable as of right under Rule 311(a)(8). The December 2011 amendment makes such orders immediately appealable under Rule 342(a)(2).

Of particular importance, it should be noted that pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of amended Rule 342, an order entered with respect to any account, even an interim or partial account, is now immediately appealable as of right.

In addition, subdivision (a)(5), which applies to estates, trusts and guardianships, was intended to clarify that an appealable Orphans’ Court order concerning the status of “individual or entities” (as used in prior Rule 342) means an order determining if an individual or entity is a fiduciary, beneficiary or creditor. Further, it has now been confirmed that an order removing or refusing to remove a fiduciary is immediately appealable under this subdivision.

The goal of the amendment is to facilitate orderly and efficient administration of estates, trusts and guardianships in the Orphans’ Court Division.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail mscott@grblaw.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is U.S. District Court Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania looking at the Defense of Marriage Act’s validity in a Cozen O’Connor benefits disputes. As Gina Passarella writes, the dispute is between the parents of a deceased Cozen O’Connor partner and her wife. Both sides provided briefs on the constitutionality of DOMA but de-emphasized it, instead focusing on the terms of Cozen O’Connor’s benefits plan.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that prosecutors in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex-abuse case want to present expert testimony on the process sexual abusers of children use to “‘groom’” their victims.

Below the fold on Page 1, Gina Passarella writes about the ongoing dispute between Elliott Greenleaf and a former partner. The firm has amended its complaint against the ex-partner and his new firm, Stevens & Lee, for his alleged remote access to the firm’s files. It now includes the theft of more files via portable drives and the misappropriation of escrow funds.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a federal judge has ruled that a French firm must comply with federal discovery rules.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Litigation column on Page 5, Howard J. Bashman writes a guide to delays on appeal, wondering if there is an appellate traffic jam ahead.

In a Real Estate column on Page 7, Martin J. Doyle and Ross E. Bruch write about the number of different ways a recent state Superior Court case on judgment liens can be instructive.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court hearing oral arguments last week in a case that deals with a last-minute jury substitution. As reporter Zack Needles writes, a principal juror in Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital, a medical malpractice trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, was inexplicably replaced with no notice to the attorneys or the judge.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that the state Supreme Court also heard oral arguments last week about whether a Bucks County School District’s board of directors had effectively forced out the school’s tax collectors by lowering their pay rates.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes about a workers’ compensation case for which the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week, in which a woman who belatedly applied for several jobs listed in a labor market survey had work “available” to her for the purpose of her employer’s request to modify workers’ compensation benefits.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he discusses the ethics of judges using social media; a commentary on Family Law by Andrew D. Taylor, in which he writes that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel is hanging on by a thread; a sex-abuse case in which a step-grandfather was determined to be a “perpetrator”; and the W-2 forms of public school employees are not public records, according to a Commonwealth Court ruling.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Appeals of Interlocutory Orders, Part 2: Interlocutory Appeals by Permission

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

This is the second part in a series on appeals of interlocutory orders. Here is Part 1.

Sometimes a court or government unit entering an interlocutory (non-final) order is of the opinion that the order in question involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter. 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b) permits the court or government unit to state the same in its interlocutory order, thus giving a party the right to attempt to file an interlocutory appeal by permission pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 312 and Chapter 13 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The most important thing to know about Chapter 13 is that, even if the trial court includes the “magic” language required by 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b), an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order is not permissible. Instead, the party seeking to file an appeal must file a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the prothonotary of the appropriate appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the interlocutory order containing the statement required by Section 702(b). See Pa. R.A.P. 1311.

One other note of caution to those filing a Petition for Permission to Appeal an interlocutory order, the filing of such a petition does not stay the proceedings before the lower court or other government unit, unless the lower court or other government unit, or the appellate court, orders a stay.

That statement, again, is: “[this] order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter[.]”

Rule 1311 further requires that any petition be served on all other parties to the matter and on the government unit or lower court issuing the interlocutory order so that the petition may be docketed of record before the lower tribunal.

As for the contents of a Petition for Permission to Appeal an interlocutory order, the petition must contain the following:

1. A jurisdictional statement.

2. The text of the interlocutory order in question.

3. A concise statement of the case.

4. The controlling question(s) of law presented to the appellate court for review and a concise statement of why a substantial ground exists for a difference of opinion on the question and why an immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the case.

The failure of a petitioner to present its position with accuracy, brevity and clarity is a sufficient reason for the appellate court to deny the petition.

Finally, if a Petition for Permission to Appeal is filed asking the appellate court to exercise its discretion and accept the subject order for review, but the order is actually a final order which was immediately appealable as of right, the appellate court may treat the petition as an appeal from a final order pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1316.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail mscott@grblaw.com.

Appeals of Interlocutory Orders – Part 1, Pa. R.A.P. 341(c)

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

In general, appeals are only permitted from final orders, as defined by Pa. R.A.P. 341. In an action involving more than one claim, an order disposing of less than all of the claims is considered an interlocutory order (not final) and therefore not immediately appealable. However, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 341(c), a party seeking to immediately appeal an interlocutory order disposing of less than all claims may apply to the trial court for a determination of finality which would permit an immediate appeal.

In order for an interlocutory order disposing of less than all claims to be immediately appealable, the trial court must make an express determination that “an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case.” Such an order becomes appealable when entered.

If the trial court does not initially make such an express determination, the party seeking to file an immediate appeal must file an application for a determination of finality with the trial court, asking the trial court to amend its interlocutory order to make the express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case.

The Official Note to Rule 341 lists the factors to be considered by the trial court when making a determination of finality. Those factors include: (1) whether there is a significant relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) whether there is a possibility that an appeal would be mooted by further developments; (3) whether there is a possibility that the trial court will consider issues a second time; and (4) whether an immediate appeal will enhance prospects of settlement. Other factors include whether failure to entertain an immediate appeal will result in an injustice which a later appeal would not correct. See Pullman Power Prods. of Can. v. Basic Eng'rs, 713 A.2d 1169, 1173 (Pa. Super. 1998).

While the rules provide that an application for determination of finality must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court’s interlocutory order, Rule 341(c)(3) further provides that the trial court must act on the application within 30 days of entry of the interlocutory order so any application for a determination of finality should be filed earlier in order to give the opposing party and the trial court sufficient time to consider the application. During the time an application for a determination of finality is pending, the action is stayed.

If the trial court grants the application for a determination of finality, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the trial court’s amended order (unless a shorter time period is provided in Pa. R.A.P. 903(c)).

Further, if the trial court denies the application for a determination of finality, or the application is deemed denied because it is not decided within 30 days of the entry of the trial court’s interlocutory order, the party seeking an immediate appeal may seek review of the trial court’s denial by filing a petition for review with the appellate court pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Finally, it should be noted that the appellate courts may review the merits of a trial court’s determination of finality even if the parties do not challenge that decision. See Pullman Power Prods. of Can., 713 A.2d at 1173-1174; Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co., 852 A.2d 1206, 1209-1210 (Pa. Super. 2004), citing F.D.P. ex rel. S.M.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail mscott@grblaw.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s top story, writes reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel, is drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline asking the judge overseeing the federal multidistrict litigation regarding the diabetes drug Avandia to limit the contingency fees of attorneys representing individual plaintiffs to 25 percent of client awards. GSK said that in litigation “where, as here, the attorneys did not perform a substantial portion of the work, but rather benefited from coordinated discovery and other work performed by the plaintiffs’ steering committee,” the court should limit such fees, according to court papers.

Below the fold on Page 1 today, reporter Gina Passarella writes about the modest class action settlement for a group of amusement park-goers who said Palace Entertainment and Festival Fun Parks violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Card Transactions Act by printing receipts that contained the consumers’ credit and debit card expiration dates. The preliminary approval for the class in Hanlon v. Palace Entertainment Holdings will give individuals in the class a single free ticket to the amusement park.

On Page 3 of today’s Legal, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, has vacated a Superior Court ruling in the products liability case of an 11-year-old autistic boy. This comes less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in the case that the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act pre-empts all vaccination design defect claims brought against vaccine makers in state court.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

Today’s Appellate Law column is on Page 5, as Howard J. Bashman writes about how to repair the record on appeal to ensure that it reflects the full truth in all cases. “Unfortunately, it is not unusual for the record on appeal to fail to accurately reflect what actually happened before the trial court,” writes Bashman.

On Page 7, Peter F. Vaira writes about Eastern District Practice, discussing methods for federal criminal discovery and a new book he has read that deals with the topic.

As it is Tuesday, it’s also your chance to read this week’s Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The lead story for PLW, written by Amaris Elliott-Engel, details the state Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition by Allegheny County to exercise its King’s Bench or extraordinary jurisdiction to determine if the county’s real property assessment system is constitutional.

On the bottom of Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes an allocatur story about the state Supreme Court granting the appeal of a convicted murderer who was denied the right to testify after the evidence phase of his trial had closed.

This week’s Page 3 story comes from Zack Needles, who writes that an Allegheny County trial judge has ruled that Pennsylvania law, rather than Texas law, should be used in deciding the sufficiency of evidence linking coal tar pitch volatiles to cancer in more than 60 products liability cases involving injuries that occurred in Texas.

There’s plenty more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s weekly Ethics Forum, in which he tackles terminating relationships with uncooperative clients; Andrew D. Taylor’s Family Law commentary regarding Pennsylvania’s new Child Custody Act; a forgetful jury foreperson leading to an ineffective assistance claim; and a special needs trust allowing an auto-accident plaintiff to collect a settlement and keep her benefits.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fee Awards: Have Judges Separated Themselves From Practice Realities?

By Anthony S. Volpe
Special to the Legal

There have been a number of recent decisions in which judges have granted fee awards, but have been critical of the number of attorneys that contributed to the matter under consideration or the hours expended in the representation.

I wholly agree that judges need to stand as gatekeepers and every victory should not immediately translate into a fee award. I also wholly agree that every fee awards should not immediately translate into a granting of the entire petition. My concern is with the amount and type of criticism some judges level on winning counsel.

Today's litigation, especially in high stakes, bet-the-ranch cases, has produced a landscape where the attorneys are always second-guessed and, more frequently, a loss or a lower-than-expected outcome results in a malpractice suit. This has the double irony that boards of director that require corporate legal officials to the use "name counsel," so they have the cover of hiring the "best," get counsel that is compelled to staff the case with multiple attorneys to provide input on every possible contingency in an effort to avoid a disfavored result. This is followed by a result that may or may not meet the client's expectation and a judicial fee petition decision that takes counsel to task for too much effort.

As I see it, today's practice has more twist and turns than ever, and the potential for today's client to be tomorrow's plaintiff has never been greater. Everyone wants to control cost, but a general counsel who makes the decision to pick the best counsel option and makes the hard calls to pursue only the claims or defenses that are likely winners is at risk of second-guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking.

I know that most judges are hard working and overworked; however, they still need to take the time to consider the pressures on litigation counsel. Every client wants the brightest lawyers on the matter, and in today's world, they come with a price.

All of this reminds me of something my father would say. As an Italian immigrant, he often would comment that he could, when he first came to this country, buy bread for 10 cents a loaf. To this, I would remind him that he only made a dollar a day at the time. This is applicable to the judges' analysis, the curve moved to the right and that need to be recognized. Hourly rates and the effort needed to litigate matters today have changed. The greater analysis needs to focus on whether the award is justified and, given the decision to award fees, more deference may be due counsel.

Anthony S. Volpe is a founding partner of Volpe & Koenig. He can be reached at TVolpe@volpe-koenig.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

By Jaime Bochet
Of the Legal Staff

Welcome to your morning round-up of stories in today's edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click the links below to access stories directly, or head to The Legal homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today's front page features two stories from senior reporter Gina Passarella. The top story is her coverage of one of the oral arguments before the state Supreme Court. "An attorney for Jordan Lewis, found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 2007 shooting of a Philadelphia police officer in a Dunkin Donuts, argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Wednesday that evidence put on during the guilt phase of the trial improperly swayed the jury to find Lewis committed premeditated murder. The evidence, including the widow's testimony and playing surveillance footage of the crime in slow motion, was prejudicial to his client, the attorney said."

Below the fold, Gina has a business of law story, reviewing the national and local results of a survey regarding firm profitability: "The legal industry will see on average a slight increase in gross revenue, net income and profits per equity partner in 2011, while the Philadelphia market could face a slight increase in gross revenue and flat to modest bumps in net income and PPP, according to a preliminary survey of the marketplace by Wells Fargo's Legal Specialty Group."

Reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel has today's Page 3 Regional News story, a profile of the new head of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. "As the organization approaches its 42nd year, it's the turn of an attorney to lead the organization, specifically Harrisburg attorney Charles Wasilefski of seven-lawyer firm Peters & Wasilefski."

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

Page 5 features our "YL" or "Young Lawyer" page, this week an article by an anonymous lawyer from our South Florida affiliate, the Daily Business Review.  "The Rodent" writes about "divining the bonus pool."

Page 7 is where you'll find a "Securities Law" column by Katayun Jaffari of Saul Ewing, who wonders how the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower rules will affect companies.

Have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole? E-mail me or any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal!

Jaime Bochet is the Magazines & Supplements Editor for The Legal. Follow her on Twitter at @JaimeBochetTLI or e-mail JBochet@alm.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal (and PLW!)

By Jaime Bochet
Of the Legal Staff

Welcome to your daily round-up of stories in today's edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click the links below to access stories directly, or head to The Legal homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

As is the case every Tuesday, today's paper is especially full, because it includes our Pennsylvania Law Weekly section, which includes analysis pieces, our Verdicts & Settlements section, and contributed columns by Samuel Stretton (Ethics), Brandon Swarz (Personal Injury), and Jeff Jubelirer (Public Relations).

But let's begin with The Legal.

Topping today's front page, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel has an analysis piece regarding the impact of the state Supreme Court's decision in Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania v. Koken. Even though Koken eliminated the Pennsylvania Insurance Department's command that automobile policies have mandatory arbitration clauses, attorneys around the state say that arbitration remains popular for the resolution of motor vehicle claims brought by motorists against their insurers under their uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motor vehicle policies.

Below the fold, senior staff reporter Gina Passarella has the sixth and final piece in her weekly series examining the impact of e-discovery on the practice and business of law. This week, she writes that much is said about the burdens and challenges of e-discovery, and rightfully so, but the list of organizations dedicated solely to improving the process are nearly just as prevalent. 

Inside, in our Page 3 Regional News section, Gina has another business of law story, this time about a new practice. Dechert has created an outsourcing and offshoring practice under the umbrella of its intellectual property department in order to take advantage of the growing desire of its clients to outsource certain non-core business functions.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2. The top stories from our sister publications across the country make up our Page 4 National News section.

The Legal's contributed columns today include an "Eastern District Practice" column by Peter F. Vaira of Vaira & Riley, who discusses litigation costs that may be awarded to the prevailing party in a lawsuit pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The article will not discuss the award of attorney fees.

Our second contributed article is "Upon Further Review," Howard Bashman's appellate column. Bashman hails the advent of cameras in the courtroom, calling it a "new day for openness" in the Pennsylvania appellate courts.

Today's Pennsylvania Law Weekly section begins with a story by reporter Ben Present, who writes, "A controversy in Western Pennsylvania stemming from allegations that a judge ordered her court reporter to alter transcripts from a murder trial became more complicated Thursday after the court reporter's lawyer said the court reporter denies altering the transcript and plans to sue one of the attorneys alleging misconduct."

Below the fold, reporter Zack Needles has an analysis piece regarding the continuing legal troubles of the Orie sisters. He writes, "As state Sen. Jane C. Orie, R-Allegheny, faces a new round of charges and a retrial on the horizon, legal watchers say her sister, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, may be feeling the heat now more than ever."

And that is just the front page! Head to the main website of the PLW section to check out even more content from across the commonwealth.

Have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole? E-mail me or any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal and PLW!

Jaime Bochet is the Magazines & Supplements Editor for The Legal. Follow her on Twitter at @JaimeBochetTLI or e-mail JBochet@alm.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

By Jaime Bochet 
Of the Legal Staff

Welcome to your daily round-up of stories in today's edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click the links below to access stories directly, or head to The Legal homepage.  (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Topping today's front page, reporters Zack Needles and Ben Present write that the state Superior Court has dismissed a claim of double jeopardy made by state Sen. Jane C. Orie, R-Allegheny, as frivolous, saying an Allegheny County trial court properly granted a mistrial based on allegedly forged defense documents.

Sharing the top of the page, senior reporter Gina Passarella writes that former City Councilman Rick Mariano, who spent years in jail for fraud convictions, is allowed to keep more than $65,000 in pension contributions, the Commonwealth Court ruled. The case involves what the city had to pay Saul Ewing for representing Mariano during the investigation of the criminal charges prior to the indictment. 

Below the fold, Gina has another big story from Commonwealth Court, where a judge who presided over trials in Pennsylvania's suits against pharmaceutical companies for overcharging the state for prescription drug reimbursements has denied post-trial motions from both the state and two drug companies.

Our Page 3 Regional News story today is from one of The Legal's affiliate publications, the New Jersey Law Journal. Reporter David Gialanella writes that the 3rd Circuit has ruled that a clause in Verizon cellphone service contracts that makes arbitration of disputes mandatory but prohibits arbitration as a class is enforceable under federal law, despite New Jersey Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

The Legal's contributed columns begin on Page 5, with a "Law Firm Management" by consultant Joel Rose, who shares his proven strategies to help differentiate a firm from competitors

Page 7 features our weekly YL  or "Young Lawyer" page, which today has a column by solo practitioner David Koller. Koller shares his story of recently suffering from a brain hemorrhage and reveals what he took away from the experience.

Have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole? E-mail me or any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal!

Jaime Bochet is the Magazines & Supplements Editor for The Legal. Follow her on Twitter at @JaimeBochetTLI or e-mail JBochet@alm.com.