Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert - No. 66 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- This is Justice Donohue’s dissenting opinion in an appeal concerning the Dragonetti Act (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8351–8354) and its application to attorneys.
- The Dragonetti Act creates a statutory cause of action for the wrongful use of civil proceedings, allowing recovery when a defendant in the underlying action shows termination in their favor and that the plaintiff (including attorneys) acted without probable cause or with gross negligence and for an improper purpose.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has long asserted exclusive authority under Article V, § 10(c) to prescribe rules governing practice, procedure, and the conduct of attorneys and to discipline them (e.g., Rules of Professional Conduct; disciplinary enforcement).
- Donohue argues the Dragonetti Act directly regulates attorney conduct in areas already governed by the Court’s rules (e.g., Pa.R.P.C. 3.1; disciplinary rules; Pa.R.C.P. sanctioning provisions), and thus is an unconstitutional legislative encroachment on the Court’s exclusive constitutional authority.
- He explains common-law remedies (malicious use of process; abuse of process) remain available against attorneys and that any change to those common-law doctrines—such as abolishing the “old English rule”—should be made by the Court, not the Legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dragonetti Act is constitutional as applied to attorneys | Seibert: The statute is a valid legislative exercise creating a remedy for wrongful civil proceedings and applies to attorneys | Villani (and Donohue dissent): The Act intrudes on the Court’s exclusive rulemaking and disciplinary authority under Art. V, § 10(c) | Dissent: The Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to attorneys (legislative encroachment) |
| Whether the Supreme Court’s authority to regulate attorney conduct is exclusive | Seibert: Legislature may enact substantive statutes affecting conduct and remedies | Donohue: Article V, § 10(c) grants the Supreme Court exclusive authority; only limited powers reserved to Legislature | Dissent: The Court’s rulemaking/disciplinary power is exclusive; Legislature may not regulate attorney conduct generally |
| Whether existing Court rules and disciplinary procedures cover the same conduct targeted by the Dragonetti Act | Seibert: Statute provides civil remedies beyond disciplinary sanctions; therefore it is complementary | Donohue: The Act duplicates and conflicts with Rules of Professional Conduct, disciplinary enforcement and civil procedure sanctions | Dissent: Overlap/duplication underscores unconstitutional encroachment; Court’s system suffices and remains available |
| Whether litigants would be left without remedy if Dragonetti is invalid as applied to attorneys | Seibert: Plaintiffs need statutory remedy to address wrongful litigation conduct | Donohue: Common-law torts (malicious use/abuse of process) and Court’s ability to modify common law provide adequate remedies; legislative substitution is improper | Dissent: Invalidating Dragonetti as to lawyers does not immunize attorneys—common law and Court-developed remedies remain available |
Key Cases Cited
- Wajert v. State Ethics Comm'n, 420 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1980) (Legislative ethics restriction found to infringe the Court’s exclusive authority to regulate attorney conduct)
- Maunus v. State Ethics Comm’n, 544 A.2d 1324 (Pa. 1988) (only the Supreme Court may regulate and discipline attorneys admitted to practice in the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Stern, 701 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1997) (statute criminalizing attorney conduct that duplicated Rule of Professional Conduct struck down as unconstitutional)
- In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1978) (observing the exclusivity of Article V, § 10(c) rulemaking authority)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (discusses the Court’s authority to develop common law)
- McGee v. Feege, 535 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1987) (distinguishes malicious use of process from abuse of process)
- Publix Drug Co. v. Breyer Ice Cream Co., 32 A.2d 413 (Pa. 1943) (elements of malicious use of process under common law)
- Zemprelli v. Daniels, 436 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 1981) (duty of the Court to invalidate legislative action repugnant to the Constitution)
- Kremer v. State Ethics Comm'n, 469 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1983) (recognition of Court’s supervisory authority over attorney conduct)