News

September 3, 2008

Moran OKs $3.4M for firm

Prothonotary’s action comes six weeks after judge struck down previous judgment.

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
Terrie Morgan-Besecker on Facebook   |   @TLTerrieMorgan on Twitter

Luzerne County Prothonotary Jill Moran has once again entered a $3.4 million judgment against a law firm in a hotly contested legal malpractice case that included allegations of bias against Judge Mark Ciavarella.

Moran on Friday signed a court document that will allow attorneys with Robert Powell and Associates, a law firm in which she is a partner, to collect on a jury verdict awarded to Bernadette Slusser against the law firm of Laputka, Bayless, Ecker and Cohn.

Moran’s action comes six weeks after a specially appointed Centre County judge struck down a previous judgment Moran signed. Senior Judge Charles C. Brown Jr. ruled on July 14 that the Powell firm had acted prematurely in obtaining the judgment because an outstanding legal claim had not yet been resolved.

That outstanding claim, known as detrimental reliance, became a non-issue on Thursday, however, after Jonathan Lang, an attorney with the Powell firm, filed court papers dropping the claim. That opened the door for the firm to once again seek to collect on the judgment.

The move is the latest legal salvo in a highly contentious battle over the $3.4 million verdict a jury entered in February against the Laputka firm.

Jeffrey McCarron, attorney for the Laputka firm, filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, arguing, in part, that Ciavarella was biased against his client because the judge had financial ties with a company once partly owned by Powell.

Ciavarella never ruled on the post-trial motions, however. Under state law, if a judge does not rule within 120 days, the verdict stands, allowing the plaintiff to seek to collect.

The Powell firm did just that in the Slusser case, obtaining a judgment that was signed by Moran on June 17.

McCarron then filed a motion seeking to strike the judgment, arguing that the detrimental reliance claim – an allegation that a person relied on the advice of another to their detriment – had to first be resolved.

Ciavarella had ruled prior to trial that the detrimental reliance issue would be tried separately from other negligence issues. That trial has not yet been held. Because of that, McCarron argued Slusser could not begin collection efforts on the verdict on the other matters.

Brown, who was appointed after Ciavarella recused himself, sided with McCarron and struck down the judgment.

Now that the Powell firm has dropped the detrimental reliance claim, it is free to seek a judgment again.

McCarron could not be reached for comment Tuesday regarding whether he will seek to strike the new judgment.

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews