*1 920A.2d 162 Lani G. HARKNESS
v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.
Macy’s East, Inc., Intervenor.
Appeal Macy’s East, Inc., Intervenor. G.
Lani Harkness v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
Macy’s East, Inc., Intervenor. Appeal Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
Nos. 112 MAP 113 MAP 2005. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Dec. 2005. April 17, Decided *3 Caffier, Roger Mackarevich, H. Esq., Gerard Esq., Matthew Carol J. Mowery, Esq., Harrisburg, Unemployment for Com- pensation Board of Review.
Thomas Beckley, II, Sanford Esq., Beckley, Charles Owen Esq., Harrisburg, for amicus curiae PA Retailers’ Association. Goldich,
Jonathan A. Robert Segal, Esq., Esq., M. Kelly Dobbs Bunting, Esq., Philadelphia, for amicus curiae Society for Human Management, Resource et al. Hoffman, Allentown,
Steven Eric Esq., for Lani G. Hark- ness. Fourlas,
Debra P. Esq., James P. DeAngelo, Esq., David Barasch, East, for Esq., Harrisburg, Macy’s Inc. Caffier,
Roger Mackarevich, H. Esq., Gerard Matthew Esq., Carol J. Mowery, Esq., Harrisburg, for Unemployment Com- pensation Board of Review. Fourlas,
Debra Esq., P. P. DeAngelo, Esq., James David Barasch, Esq., Harrisburg, Macy’s East Inc. NEWMAN, CASTILLE, CAPPY, C.J., and
BEFORE: BAER, SAYLOR, JJ. EAKIN and THE JUDGMENT ANNOUNCING OPINION THE COURT OF CAPPY. Justice Chief an employ- consider whether appeal by
In this allowance at an may er Unemployment Compensation of the a referee hearing before A attorney. not an who is individual Board Review that an determined Court Commonwealth majority dis- respectfully We represented. not be so may below, thus, forth reverse for the reasons set agree, Court. order Commonwealth Unemploy- found this as underlying appeal, The facts (Referee), are as Harold Referee S. Geld Compensation ment (Claimant) employed by was Lani Harkness follows: Claimant (Macy’s) as Store Macy’s Department Logistics Federated t/a August On products. Lauder advisor for Estée beauty in a discussion became rude with Claimant a customer not presently which was eye product concealer regarding not that she did informed Claimant The customer available. also on her. The customer like her to wait a “b-” want sounds, Claimant found kissing such as gestures made Claimant, old she was. and asked Claimant how offensive confrontation, attempt not did the “accelerated” despite nearby that a manager request or a nor supervisor obtain considered Claimant make such a contact. While co-employee told Ultimately, Claimant security, she did do so. calling here.” fat a—out of “get your the customer *4 handbook, aware, employee based was Claimant vulgari- or use of obscenities that the use of lewdness and/or immediate grounds be for a customer could ties towards not immedi- warning. Claimant was prior termination without intervened manager her who by department ately disciplined however, 22, 2003, after August the customer. On appease vacation, manag- the store from a one week Claimant returned er her for employment terminated Claimant from her remarks to the customer. 24, 2003, com- August
On Claimant filed for pensation benefits. later,
Approximately two on September weeks Unemployment Compensation Allentown Service Center found be ineligible Claimant to for benefits. appealed hearing Claimant and a was held on October
9, 2003 before Referee The hearing Geld. was attended Claimant, counsel, Claimant’s representative Macy’s. and a for Forrest, Macy’s was an representative, employee William EXPRESS, Louis, TALX company UC located St. Mis- souri is in that representing business companies unemployment compensation matters. Forrest not an was objected attorney. Initially, Macy’s repre- Claimant being sented aby non-attorney. objection This was overruled Referee Geld.
By 4, 2003, dated November Referee Geld decision/order that concluded Claimant violated Macy’s’ customer service policy that this rose of willful level misconduct. 402(e) Section Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensa- tion that provides Law a claimant shall for eligible for any her unemployment week which is due discharge to her from work willful misconduct connected 802(e). her with work. P.S. Referee found Geld 402(e) benefits were properly denied Section under Law. appealed
Claimant this decision to the Unemployment Com- pensation (Board). Board of Review The Board concluded the determination made by Referee Geld proper was under the Unemployment Compensation Law and adopted findings Furthermore, Referee’s and conclusions. re- sub spect to the issue judice, the Board found that the Law “permits to be parties non-legal such, advisors. As err in Referee did not allowing represented by a non-legal advisor.” Decision of Unemployment Review, Compensation Board of at
Thereafter, the to Commonwealth Court. appealed Claimant en a banc Commonwealth Court February On divided permit Macy’s error for the Referee to concluded that it was “tax non-attorney a hearing by to represented Compensation Unemployment Harkness v. consultant.” (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). Review, 867 Board of The engaged inquiry. the court in a two-fold Specifically, in the engaging first determined that Forrest was majority and acted as he before Referee practice appeared of law as that Claimant was dis- Macy’s contending advocate thereof, the In support due to willful misconduct. charged that Forrest conducted “cross-examination” majority noted matters,” witnesses, regarding evidentiary “made decisions a Id. The court “closing argument.” at 731. and offered practice in the engaging then found that Forrest’s majority unauthorized, gener- the proposition based law was Pennsyl- before non-attorney may represent parties ally, agencies. acknowledging administrative While vania courts or Unemployment to the Com- exceptions, majority pointed Law, pursuant to regulations promulgated as well as pensation Law, the claimant majority’s only permits that in the view non-attorney unemployment hearing. 43 P.S. 862. The Commonwealth concluded that informal nature majority despite Court relatively compensation proceedings and it Board controversy, erroneous for the small amounts was Thus, the representation. Com- allow Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded monwealth Board, hearing to a referee for a new to the remand case opinion. consistent with the court’s Leadbetter, joined Renée Brigance by Judge Bonnie Judge Jubelirer, opined first Cohn dissented. dissenters the unauthorized engaged even if Forrest was Second, found law, any error was harmless. dissenters not all non- majority’s analysis overly to be broad in that engaged in these are representatives proceedings lawyer law; in clarifying often assist issues. they dissenters, Furthermore, the Board demon- according permitting strated sound reasons for policy non-lawyers participate unemployment compensation hearings: pro- are informal and small ceedings relatively money amounts of in controversy. Finally, questioned the dissenters wheth- er majority’s non-lawyers conclusion that not repre- could *6 claimants, sent but could in employers represent essence requiring Board to discriminate between could parties, equal protection scrutiny. withstand Macy’s, sought which had and been granted post- intervene, decision leave to both petitions Board filed appeal allowance of from the Commonwealth Court’s deci allocatur,1 sion. granted We and consolidated the to matters consider whether a non-employee, non-lawyer may represent unemployment compensation proceedings.2
In determining non-lawyer whether a may represent an employer in unemployment compensation proceedings, we first will consider whether a representing an em- ployer such proceedings is of engaging practice law. As we find that such representation does not constitute the law, practice of we will then consider whether the Unemploy- ment Compensation permits Law non-lawyer representation of an employer. Pennsylvania Constitution vests with our Court
the exclusive
to
authority
regulate
practice
law,
of
includes the power to define
practice
what constitutes the
of
V,
10(c);
§
law. Pa. Const. Art.
Dauphin
Bar
County
Mazzacaro,
545,
Association
229,
v.
465 Pa.
351 A.2d
233
(1976).3,4
law,
What constitutes the practice
however,
of
is not
jurisdiction
appeal pursuant
Our Court has
over this
42
to
Pa.C.S.
724(a).
pure
2. As the
question
issue before us involves a
of
our standard of
review
necessary,
is de novo and
scope
to the extent
our
of review is
Jones,
plenary.
4,
659,
Township v.
capable comprehensive state all-encompassing has attempted provide Court comprise practice ment what activities law. Office Marcone, 654, Pa. v. Disciplinary Counsel (1937). 81, 193 (2004); Farrell, al. v. 327 Pa. A. Shortz et of law determined what constitutes the have case-by-case on a basis. consti- question our has addressed the of what
While
Court
basis,
on
we have
tutes
an individualized
inquiry
made clear that
to the
consideration
paramount
Marcone,
658; Dauphin
855 A.2d at
public
interest.
interest
While is by it is burdening tion also achieved public, law, practice resulting too broad a definition of the public our in the affairs. As stated overregulation public’s threads of Dauphin County, legal consequences Court “The contemporary way through often weave their even casual course, times, clearly it interactions. There when is lay persons appreciate legal problems within ken of law____” Const, V, to practice admission to the bar and Pa. art. 10(c). § thereto, Pennsylvania, practice by person who 4. Related of law 2524(a). not a the bar is member of a misdemeanor. Pa.C.S. and consequences in a given involved situation and the factors should influence No necessary public decisions. inter- est would be by requiring lay advanced these judgments made exclusively by lawyers____ Each case must turn on a careful analysis particular judgment involved and the expertise which brought must be to bear on its exercise.” Dauphin County, 351 Court, our in determining what constitutes the must keep public interest of primary
concern, both in terms of the protection of the public as well inas ensuring that the regulation of the is not law so strict that public good suffers.
When
interest,
considering
public
our Court has
focused on the character of the
Shortz,
activities at issue.
In
our Court set forth three broad categories of activities that
may
(1)
constitute the practice of law:
the instruction and
advising
clients in regard to the
so
they
may
pursue their affairs and be informed as to their rights and
(2)
obligations;
the preparation of documents for clients re
quiring familiarity
principles beyond the ken of
ordinary
(3)
laypersons; and
the appearance on behalf of
clients before public
tribunals
order that the attorney may
assist the deciding official in the proper interpretation and
enforcement of the
Id.
law.
More recently, our Court ex
pressed that the practice of law is implicated
holding
out of oneself to the public as competent
to exercise legal
judgment and the implication that he or she has the technical
competence to analyze legal problems and the requisite char
acter qualifications to
act
a representative capacity. Dau
phin County,
Finally, we have cautioned that the tribunal before which the individual is before is not in determinative deciding law, viz., or not the of “whether comprises practice
what ” controversy ‘litigation’.... called a ‘court’ or the tribunal is Yet, Shortz, proceedings A. the nature of the at 21. wholly not to be acting which the individual is is discounted. of operations and mode of (warning Id. at 22-23 functions should be confused with compensation workers board are agencies legislative other bodies and administrative nature). judicial than or character rather executive Indeed, proceedings certainly such is relevant the nature of terms protec- of the both in of determining public, needs overregulation. tion and of is that a determination of law
Cognizant basis, on focusing primarily protection a case-by-case made on weal, so, considering and in public doing and the public in, nature activities as well as the engaged the character issue, at in this at turn the facts issue proceedings we appeal.
First, employer find performed activities proceeding representative unemployment compensation in an creating are focus a factual largely primarily routine deny basis on which a referee will award providers As general proposition, benefits. tax, and management payroll, as employee services such also unemployment compensa- benefit will attend operations tion records provide appropriate personnel proceedings as to fact-finding process and assist in the so other documents her These individuals aid the referee in his or determination. legal practitioners. akin rather than more to facilitators analysis not to presence engage their purpose but as an legal problems, and intricate rather complex (or claimant) in adjunct offering respec- to the their concerning tive the events issue. viewpoints our categories In of activities that terms the three broad there suggested may Court has constitute and few advising legal rights responsibilities is scant as to familiarity requiring of documents preparation instances Furthermore, while as noted legal principles. Court, certainly non-attorney representatives Commonwealth *9 tribunals, of an their appear public on behalf before interpreta- role in official assisting deciding proper above, tion of is lacking. and enforcement the law As noted as a non-attorney role of the is more representative than of engaging analysis facilitator rather an advocate the law.
Second, note of the com- we take nature pensation Unemployment Compensation The proceedings. in nature. purpose Law is remedial The fundamental security unemployed Law is to economic those provide through no fault their own. 43 P.S. 752. As Madame Corporation, Justice in Rue v. K-Mart aptly Newman noted (1998), Pa. 713 A.2d the Law is designed allow unemployed funds to be obtained no fault persons through of their administratively own at earliest that is point feasible. end,
To unemployment compensation this must system operate simply, efficiently. and The are quickly, proceedings “by and design, brief informal nature.” Id. the claims for benefits are not intensely litigated. intended Unem- ployment are not compensation proceedings trials. rules mandated; pre-hearing evidence are there is no discov- trial; no there ery; parties right jury have to a indeed Also, no requirement that be a lawyer. referee there are minimal importantly, only money amounts of controversy. arising Id. Issues in these matters generally questions complex of fact not Re- requiring legal analysis. to be quiring employers represented by counsel not only will informal, undermine the cost speedy low nature these proceedings, may employers it dissuade from many defending claims for leading benefits to the of an possibility unwarranted drain on the system. stated,
Simply the character performed by activities representatives at unemployment hearings coupled proceedings, informal nature these minimal amounts issue, long history participation and the representatives suggest public does not need the protection that serves as the basis for certain classifying indeed, to constitute
activities law in the representatives engaging finding non-lawyer acting unemployment compensation proceedings impose unnecessary would burden on public.5 *10 considerations, hold that a
Based we above non-attorney before referee of representing employer not in the of engaging practice Board is law. of is further holding regarding practice sup-
Our to other that come similar ported by numerous states have compensation to respect unemployment their conclusions See, Review, systems. Perto v. The Board Illinois e.g., of 485, 274 210 Employment Security, Ill.App.3d Department of 933, (1995); 232 v. Michigan Ill.Dec. 654 N.E.2d State Bar of (1985). 422 839 Of Galloway, particu- Mich. 369 N.W.2d is a Court of our Supreme lar note decision rendered Giles, in Henize sister state Ohio v. Ohio St.3d (1986). that The rationale the Ohio supported N.E.2d holding non-lawyer of an High representation Court’s in a a referee not run afoul of hearing before does true here: public rings especially interest inescapable The that because of the character of finding is stake, light lay in of the interest at proceedings repre- in this pose not hazard to limited public sentation does Our the clear setting. recognition conclusion bolstered lay been the since the representation practice has compensation of in inception unemployment program Ohio’s today permit 1936.... Our decision does reach nor type proceedings contrasted with the These activities and can be Shortz, upon by in relied the Commonwealth Court in this situation matter, representation during in our Court which found compensation proceedings workers’ to constitute the of law. formality proceedings, complexity compensation workers' The and however, informal, straightforward sharp stand in contrast to unemployment proceedings that serve as the vehicle determine compensation compensation pro- benefits. hallmarks workers' ceedings pre-trial investigation discovery, filings include testimony by experts, potentiality significant pleadings, and the hallmarks, however, issue. of these are benefit amounts at None present unemployment proceedings. in unemployment compen- rendering regarding advice our holding sation board orders. Rather laws narrow merely permits lay representation parties assist preparation presentation of their cause order hearings facilitate the hearing process. We believe board proceedings they should not turned into adversarial since legislatively function as informal mecha- designed through referee, nism capacity, which the in a participatory ascertains facts In the serious detri- light involved. ment if employers to claimants and would result disturbed, current system unnecessarily were we deem this to be an limited author- appropriate setting which to ize lay due to the representation granting deference agency statute and rule.
Id. (emphasis original). at 589-90
Having that non-attorney employer repre concluded sentatives at are not compensation proceedings in the engaging will next determine whether Assembly the General intended the Unemployment *11 Compensation to such permit representation. Law The Com Court, monwealth after concluding non-lawyer represen tatives in the engaged were continued its analysis and concluded that such not au representation was thorized the Unemployment under Due to Compensation Law. our determination that non-lawyer employer representatives are not engaging the we need not consider “practice whether the is “authorized” in Unemploy law” the Yet, ment Compensation we must engage Law. nevertheless a statutory inquiry permits as to the Law employ whether an er to non-lawyer representative use a under the statute. Based the the upon regulations Law and there promulgated under, non-attorney we conclude that a representative is permitted represent employer an compen sation proceedings before a referee. construction,
As in all matters of statutory our is to goal ascertain and effectuate the intent of the 1 Legislature. 1921(a). § Pa.C.S. the of a language When statute is clear and unambiguous, go no further in the determining need
556 1921(b) (“When § the intent. 1 Pa.C.S. Assembly’s
General ambiguity, a are clear and free from all words of statute pretext under the disregarded of it not to be letter a only its It is when words statute pursuing spirit.”) Assembly intention explicit not that the General statutory by considering be discerned other means may 1921(c). § interpretation. Pa.C.S. solely focused on Section 702
The Commonwealth Court § Specif- Unemployment Compensation Law. P.S. the limita- regarding ically, pinpointed language court upon Quoting on to be claimants. imposed tions fees any pro- sentence individual “Any claiming board, or referee be department, may before the ceeding agent; other authorized but no duly counsel or represented by any greater fee agent charge such counsel or shall or receive board,” 43 P.S. approved by than is such services only the claimant the Court came to conclusion thus, represented non-lawyer employer may aby non-lawyer. not be may upon this section is The Commonwealth Court’s reliance First, “Limitation of Section is entitled troublesome. representation. to the speak right fees” does Furthermore, Assembly clearly in Section the General to a claimant’s assessed fee counsel spoke right no than that Board. agent greater approved authorized a claimant from unmistakably protects Yet while Section fees, to be plainly excessive it is silent as to fees assessed way employer’s right and in no addresses an it error for we believe was representation. rely this section support the Commonwealth Court Unemployment Compensation determination that of its by a non- employer representation does not authorize Law *12 lawyer. helpful discerning Section 702 whether
While that an Legislature employer may intended the Unemployment a another section of Com- by non-lawyer, Assembly pensation clearly reveals that General Law of an contemplated non-attorney representation employer.
557 822, Law, § 502 of 43 P.S. addresses Specifically Section that, appeals process decisions of a referee and the and notes attorneys representatives “The and their or other parties shall be department duly record and notified of the time place hearing of a referee’s and the referee’s decision ” therefor[e],.... § and the reasons 43 P.S. 822 (emphasis The statute’s does not differentiate supplied). language be- employer. tween claimant and refers to representation It parties by attorneys representatives” all or “other at the ref- eree’s Based the clear and hearing. explicit language here, finding at issue we have no trouble that there is a stat- utory non-lawyer representation. basis for employer hold that the Unemployment Compensation clearly we Law explicitly permits representation by un- employment compensation proceedings.6 our interpretation
Consistent with of the Unemploy Law, Compensation ment the Board has long interpreted the permit Law to both claimants and employers represent to be ed by non-lawyers proceedings before an unemployment An interpretation referee. agency charged the administration particular of a is normally deference, Cortes, accorded clearly unless erroneous. Tritt v. 317, 903, (2004); Winslow-Quattlebaum 578 Pa. 851 A.2d (2000). v. Maryland Ins. 561 Pa. Group, In this respect, interpretation the Board’s is made manifest regulations numerous the option which envision of repre sentation for both non-lawyers claimant and employer. See, 101.85(a) (“[T]he e.g., § Pa.Code ... tribunal shall ... give notice to the and their counsel or parties authorized agent Assembly 6. We note that the General has enacted Act 5 of 2005 which Unemployment Compensation added Section 214 to the Law. 43 P.S. Parties,” "Representation provides 774. Entitled this section parties any proceeding Unemployment all Compensation under Law may represented by attorney representative. or other While the moot., suggests Board appeal this enactment renders this disagree question as the enactment does not answer the of whether non-lawyer representation unemployment compensation proceedings Macy's constitutes the of law. Furthermore would still be subject expense hearing to the time of new if the Commonwealth Court's order valid. remained *13 (“A the decision copy of record____”); § 101.89 34 Pa.Code counsel or ... and their ... to the parties mailed ... shall be ”). agent.... authorized non-lawyer representative conclusion, find that a
In pro- in unemployment representing in the law engaging a referee is ceedings before such Compensation permits Law Unemployment and that the the order foregoing, Based representation. matter is and the hereby reversed Court Commonwealth consis- proceedings Court remanded to Commonwealth opinion.7 tent this in the participate did not NIGRO
Former Justice of this matter. or decision consideration in the not participate did Former NEWMAN Justice matter. decision of this joins opinion. BAER
Justice concurs in the result. Justice SAYLOR Justice dissenting opinion files a EAKIN Justice joins. CASTILLE EAKIN, dissenting.
Justice actions non-employee representative’s I Because find et al. v. under Shortz “practicing law” this matter constituted (1937), Farrell, 81, 193 I must dissent. A. 20 327 Pa. on “the appearance included held the Shortz tribunals, application public before behalf of clients evidence, and cross-examination the examination rules of to assist the witnesses, in order arguments presentation enforcement interpretation proper official deciding Compensation Unemployment Harkness v. of the law.” (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) Review, (citing Board us, we need not entertain of the issue before Due to our resolution con- argument Court’s determination Macy's' that the Commonwealth Unemployment Com- interpretation of the an unconstitutional stitutes United Equal Protection Clause of the in violation of the pensation Law Constitution. States 21). Shortz, Here, representative cross- “conducted examination[,] ... decisions mat- regarding evidentiary made ters, ... closing argument^] legal implicitly [and] competence analyze that he had the technical Board, and that he had the problem faced in a requisite qualifications representative character to act Id. capacity.” support repre- These facts the conclusion the *14 performed attorney sentative the function of an and thus was engaged practice of law.
At time hearing, of this a be corporation could not counsel; represented by anyone other than licensed as se, entity, artificial a corporation represent could not itself pro as a person natural to See v. permitted Walacavage was do. 2000, Inc., 137, 281, Excell Pa.Super. 831 480 A.2d 3 283 n. & (1984) 283-84 (although Pennsylvania Court has not Supreme directly issue, addressed law is clear that corporation may appear in court at only through attorney to law admitted court). practice before This was “a can corporation because except do no act its through agents and ... such agents representing the corporation must be at attorneys Court have been who admitted to practice, officers of subject Id., court and to its control.” at 284 (quoting MacNeil 157, (D.Del.1958)). v. Corp., Hearst 160 159 F.Supp. case, however,
After the hearing § this 43 P.S. 774 was enacted, providing any party to an unemployment compensa- tion proceeding “may represented by be other attorney or added). representative.” Id. This that (emphasis recognized corporations, small, or big should be to present allowed their case just as would a person. question natural is whether “other representative” meant to em- was include officers and ployees corporation itself on an (putting equal footing it persons), with natural or whether it meant was to include hiring non-lawyer representatives.
The General Assembly may
legislation
rep
enact
affecting
in a legal
resentation
it
proceeding, but
remains the exclusive
province
regulate
of this Court to
including
defining
such practice.
what constitutes
See Pa.
art.
Const.
V,
10(c);
Commission,
Gmerek v. State Ethics
(Pa.Cmwlth.2000),
Pa.
aff'd,
(2002) to define (per regulate and what (power judiciary, is and not constitutes law vested I government). or branches of would legislative executive encompasses the statute’s “other phrase representative” hold staff, corporation’s or member of the own corporate officer only not include a hired non-employee representative, but does hearings representation where purpose are determined. rights parties for a an officer entirely appropriate corporation It is to send a claim- represent its interests. Just as with employee se, pro corporate entity appear so right appear may ant’s Indeed, unfair, it be if not a constitutional se.” would “pro doing it from so. Partic- equal protection, prohibit denial of it corporations, economically with small business ularly However, management imperative appear. allowed representation, repre- hires outside corporation when here, they based on its sentation must evaluated sendees — representation. to legal amount *15 proceedings, may district individuals magisterial judge In se, counsel, a pro by representative with or with proceed matter, see Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. knowledge of personal 207(A)(1), may an corporations “by and now law, ... or an attorney corporation, at officer ... corporation, or agent authorized employee subject litigation matter knowledge personal ” of the corporation.... authorization from officer written added). 207(A)(3) Id., The note to the Rule (emphasis pro- to permit non-lawyer represen- rule is intended vides: “This tative, appear or on behalf of employee, agent authorized to establish corporation, non-lawyer ... but not allow a [a] magisteri- purpose representing a business others 207, note district court Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. proceedings.” al added). (emphasis a business is
If establish such permitting policy magisterial proceedings, which undesirable as keep simple possi- “as and nontechnical procedures id., 210, note, ble,” permitting representation such cannot be legal favored other This must include unem- proceedings. ployment compensation hearings, regardless perfuncto- how informal seem to ry they may those who familiar with It is on the complexity them. not the scale of place legal the true of the representation. determines nature in controversy, The amount the routine nature of the pro- see ceedings, the and the informality, advising, Majori- “scant” Op., at this a ty may complex not make trial, but these are not factors law” is “practicing basis, lawyers people measured. On a daily represent where amount in controversy is small. They routinely represent “scant,” If routine matters. their people advice does diminish it or transform it into something else—scant legal advice is still advice.
Accordingly, because the here representative was not a member, Macy’s officer or staff I legal repre- would hold his sentation constituted the unauthorized must from the respectfully opinion my colleagues. dissent this joins dissenting
Justice CASTILLE opinion. 920A.2d173 ASSOCIATION, PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPERS Edwards, Individually Bruce A. and as President of the Pennsylvania Troopers Association, Petitioners, State
v. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH BOARD, Respondent. GAMING CONTROL *16 Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted Nov. 2006. April
Decided