AROUND THE FIRMS

Attorney Kathleen Frederick along with the law firm Cureton Caplan brought the case. In their suit against former client Patricia Davitt, Richard J. Orloski, the client's new attorney, was subjected to claims of tortious interference, quasi-contract, negligent misrepresentation and quantum meruit. Court papers state that Ms. Frederick, along with lawyer Thomas Hunt, filed a discrimination suit on Ms. Davitt's and her co-worker's behalf. However, when a global settlement offer was made by the defendant, it was rejected by Ms. Davitt but accepted by her co-worker. It was then that the attorneys withdrew from the case, resulting in Ms. Davitt representing herself.

When the discrimination claim was dismissed on summary judgment, Ms. Davitt still had a claim for invasion of privacy. She hired Mr. Orloski, and a confidential settlement was established. The former attorneys felt that they were owed a portion of the fee ' a minimum of 40% of the recovery. Mr. Frederick and Mr. Hunt professed that Mr. Orloski secured a settlement with Ms. Davitt and wrongly kept the entire fee, despite his statement to the attorneys that he did not plan to represent the defendant. Attorney Glenn Matthew Goodge of Goodge & Makoul, based in Allentown, PA, maintained that the argument should be sent to arbitration. Although Pinnola & Bomstein attorney Michael S. Bomstein, who represented the attorneys, protested that the arbitration clause was null and void because of Mr. Oloski's allegation of the fee agreement's implausibility, Judge Schiller disagreed. He stated that Mr. Orloski was not able to contest the agreement's existence; Ms. Davitt had no contest regarding the agreement's efficacy, so the judge mandated its enforcement. Furthermore, he questioned the attorneys' motives for filing the complaint against Mr. Orloski. Mr. Bornstein expressed his discord with the judge's ruling and he plans on consulting with his clients to determine whether an appeal will follow.