*1 thе trial court properly found that such testimony would be collateral and “would have sidetracked the trial into a debate regarding the Borough Council’s motives for reversing the suspension.” Trial opinion, at 20. We therefore 2/21/96 find no error in the trial court’s preclusion of the evidence relating vindication.
Sinсe appellant has failed to establish the merits of his sufficiency and claims, evidentiary we affirm judgment his sentence.
Affirmed.
682A.2d 845 KENIS, Effie Soldatos, Vicki Soldatos Leonidas
v. PERINI CORPORATION and Michael David Fischer.
Appeal Margaret BOYCE, Esquire.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of April
Submitted 1996. Sept.
Filed 1996. *2 se, Margaret Boyce, Philadelphia, pro appellant. F. Soldatos, Edward Philadelphia, Kenis & *3 appellees. Anders, P. Philadelphia,
Jerrold for Perini & Michael Corp. Fischer, appellees. D. CIRILLO, Emеritus, BECK, J.,
Before President Judge CERCONE, and President Judge Emeritus.
CIRILLO, Judge President Emeritus. Margaret M. Boyce, Esquire, from an appeals order entered by the Court Common Pleas Philadelphia County deny- ing her motion for recusal and ordering her to turn over her counsel, file new to or suffer quash a fine. We appeal.1 the 1. Both a motiоn quash to dismiss as well as a motion to the 1996, appeal February have been filed this case. In this court and, later, quash, denied the motion to a month denied the motion to appeal procedural the dismiss for defects. recognize unseemly panel judges We that "it would be for a of three attempt prior to to reverse or overrule a order of the Court.” I.O.P. H., however, operating procedures, comment. Our court's internal
presuppose overruling that such a reversal or would be the result of an appeal parties argued” "to which the have Presently, on the merits. we appeal by рarties. are faced an which has been submitted the Therefore, parties the argument will have the benefit of oral on the find, alia, panel. merits of the Accordingly, before we inter (Boyce), re- Boyce, was Margaret Esquire M. Appellant, underlying per- them in the by represent plaintiffs tained a Boyce telephone received Subsequently, action. injury sonal Chacker, requested who Esquire, from call Edward file, as had dis- her client the Boyce photocopy them in the represent him to charged appointed her and underlying litigation. 4, hearing, court a August
On held record, judge, the trial Boyce where movеd to have the case due to a Nigro, Honorable Russell M. recused from $1,000.00 Judge Nig made to contribution that Chacker had Nigro our court. campaign supreme Judge ro’s for state to allow Chacker the recusal motion and ordered denied $l,000.00/day her fine. On copy to make file or suffer 8, 1995, from order Boyce attempted August signed by was reviewed or after which never quashed On this court August hearing. October the trial court entered the September appeal.2 On following raises the appeals from now and order which issues our review: Russell M. judge, Nigro, Did trial the Honorable Supreme Pennsylva-
who was a candidate for the Court nia, deciding the motion of err in not himself recusing Chacker, appearance Edward F. to strike Esquire, turn over Margaret Boyce, Esquire, ordering Chacker, F. a file to it was revealed Edward Mr. when $1,000.00 Esquire had made a contribution Judge Nigro’s judicial campaign, particularly when under case, Nigro Judge the same set of circumstances another *4 himself, to to recuse himself holding did recuse refuse 341, and, appealable order is under Pa.R.A.P. that the instant therefore, not quashed. must be hearing, pre- following August Specifically, the 1995 court 2. containing understanding her pared her own order the court during hearing. attempted She then to file such matters resolved the date, Boyce August On the same entered with the court 7. Upon Findings” filed an to this “Judgment on Court court. quash granted the to plaintiffs' petition, this court motion by signed court. from an order never written or the trial create help appearance would as he was improрriety, to have said in the quoted Philadelphia Inquirer Article of 15,1995? Sunday, October
(2) (no Should trial court have held discussions testimo- on the matter in ny) open prior court indicating to parties denying Boyce’s that he was Ms. motion for recusal? (3) Should the trial court have ordered Attorney Boyce to her completely have file and totally copied by copy service alleged for the purpose allowing Mr. Chacker to look at $310,000.00 the file to see if the settlement offer was ade- quate without making regarding an order not only Attorney Boyce’s outstanding legal services, also, fee for her but $7,500.00 reimbursement of hеr costs of by copying since file, would, effect, what Ms. doing be would be turning years’ over her file of five legal together work $7,500.00 costs, expenditures of without any agreement payment as to of her fee and the reimbursement of out-of- pocket expenses? Did the trial court err entering order that
Margaret Boyce, M. was entitled Esquire contingent (40%) $310,000.00 extended, fee of the first written offer prior ordering copy her to allow a service to copy the file Chacker, for Edward F. Esquire, so that he could allegedly review it to determine its value was in excess (It $310,000.00 offer? kept should be in mind that Honorable Albert Sheppard, W. Jr. of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court had conducted a settlement confer- already ence and determined that this was a good settle- ment and imposed upon sanctions under Phila- delphia Local Rule 212.2 for their accept refusal settlement).
(5) Should the trial court have entered an order on Septem- 18, 1995, ber Margaret Boyce, Esquire should turn over Plaintiffs file to Edward F. Esquire, by Monday, August (Impossibility performance obvious) $1,000.00 per 4,1995 or be fined day? August The imposes $1,000.00 order entered a fine of and does Thus, not mention it as being imposed per day. the written
639 is, court, in in which as entered the order order contradicts a for without effect, contempt of a fine the imposition held. hearing being contempt (6) attorney on without a fine an impose Can the court heard at a be attorney opportunity providing own behalf and evidence hearing present his/her of satisfy process? due requirement attorney an depriving enter order Can the trial court an with no assistance rights (compiled of her to file property hearing testi- from a at which plaintiffs) providing without or costs payment for mony providing is offered and without fees?3 attorney’s and/or multiple appellate point appellant’s violates rules We оut that brief
3.
2116(a)
First,
Appellate Procedure
procedure.
Pennsylvania Rule of
part:
provides in relevant
ordinarily
should not
questions
involved ...
The statement of
lines,
always
page,
be on
exceed one
and must
15
must never
exceed
any
appearing thereon.
separate page,
othеr matter
without
but,
2116(a). Boyce’s
only
the 15 line limit
brief not
exceeds
Pa.R.A.P.
instead,
parenthetical
queries
page
that include
is a four
statement
supplemental
length
suppositions
legal arguments. Such
and
and
deroga-
questions
clearly
is
in
in
information included
a statement
briefing
Additionally, it is
spirit
appellate
оur
rules.
tion of the
appellant’s
an
power
based on
within
court's
to dismiss the
this
requirements
of the rules of court.
conform with the
failure to
2101.
Pa.R.A.P.
Ruggero
insights of
Honorable
J.
appellant
We refer the
to the
Appeals
Court of
for the Third Circuit:
Aldisert of the United States
points, a
appellant’s brief
contains tеn or twelve
When I read an
that
say
presumption
any
is
of them.
I do not
that there
no merit to
arises
presumption
presumption,
is an
but it is
it
irrebuttable
advocacy
appellate advocacy. Appellate
reduces
effectiveness
effectiveness,
loquaciousness.
by
is measured
Cir.1982)
Hart,
(3d
(quoting
F.2d
287 n. 1
Unitеd States v.
693
Aldisert,
Competence
Appellate
and
The
Bar: Professional
Professional
Judge,
Eye
Appellate
One
Responsibility View
the Jaundiced
—A
(1982)).
Hughes
Corp., 364
See also
v. GAF
Cap.U.L.Rev.
(1987).
A.2d 173
appellant
2117.
derogation
of Pa.R.A.P.
We
admonish
her
also
argu-
statement of the
parentheticals
has
her
Ms.
mеnt,
included
to,
including,
regarding
comments
but not limited
sarcastic
counsel,
judgments
judge,
trial
opposing
illicit character
about the
attorney
legal
We
improper
are confounded that
conclusions.
briefing
appeal. See
inappropriate
would
such
license
take
(the
2117(b)
any
of the cаse shall not contain
statement
Pa.R.A.P.
responsibility
appellant
argument;
is
it
Before addressing Boyce’s substantive
on ap
issues
we must first
peal,
determine whether the order from which
us. An
properly
appeal may
taken is
before
be
*6
only
taken
from a
order which
of
or
disposes
final
all claims
of
рarties.
all
Pa.R.A.P. 341. The
of
Procedure
Appellate
Rules
consider orders to be “final and
when the order
appealable”
disposes
claims,
either
of all
of all
or
the court
parties,
when
enters
order
an
upon determining
immediate
would facilitate resolution of the
case.
Pa.R.A.P.
entirе
See
341(b)(1),
(c).
(b)(3),
dictates,
to these
the immedi
According
final;
ate order is not
the parties to the suit as
as the
well
underlying personal
injury
pending.
claims are still actively
addition,
In
the trial court did not
state
the order that an
immediate
would facilitate
of
resolution
this entire case.
The instant
compels
copy
order
Ms.
her file
such
provide
and
to Mr. Chacker.
In the event that she does
directive,
comply
not
court
power
has the
$1,000.00
upon her a
impose
per day sanction. Our court has
of
adjudication
imposition
held that
without
contempt
interlocutory.
of sanctions is
See DeMasi v.
408
DeMasi
414,
denied,
(1991),
101
Pа.Super.
597 A.2d
allocatur
535 Pa.
(1993)
619,
proceedings respective parties). and the contentions
641
sanctions,
it
finding
contempt
imposes
nor
we find
Genovese,
Sonder,
suprа;
presently appealable.
supra.
18,
1995 order denies
September
The remainder
Judge Nigro’s
August
hearing.
recusal from the
Our
denying
court has reaffirmed the fact that orders
a pre-trial
motion to
judge
interlocutory.
recuse a
from a case are
Hahalyak
Integra
v.
Fin.
678 A.2d
Corp.,
Pa.Super.
(1996)
from
(apрeal
refusing
order
recusal
motions
judge quashed;
interlocutory
order was neither final nor an
or
collateral order that was
Common
immediately appealable);
Hall,
wealth v.
(appeal
A сollateral order is an order from and collateral separable to the of right main cause action where the involved is too important to be denied review and the is question presented such that if postponed judgment review is until final case, the claim will be irreparably lost.
Boyce clаims that the trial court ordered her to improperly allow to photocopy Chacker her client file. She asserts that she has been deprived property right of a fundamental that the court should have entered an order ensuring that she any would be paid years costs and fees due her from her of representing plaintiffs. disagree. We law, first Pennsylvania
We
note that under
a client
right
has the absolute
to terminate
attorney-client
rela
tionship
any
of
contractual
regardless
arrangement between
Hiscott and Robinson v.
426
parties.
King,
Pa.Super.
two
denied,
338,
(1993),
641,
642
(1993),
affirmed,
A.2d 347
Hugo,
(1994));
Hughes,
v.
353 Pa.Su
Pa.
Pennsylvania Civil part:
(b) An attorney’s appearance party for a not be with- may another has attorney drawn without leave court unless simultaneously for the appearance entered or enters delay any stage does not party change attorneys and the of the litigаtion. Rule 1.16 the Rules Professional Conduct
Additionally, states, in part:
(a) (c), lawyer stated shall Except paragraph as or, has com- representation a client where the represent menced, a client representation from the shall withdraw if:
(3) the lawyer discharged. case, docket, The trial that on reveals April prothonotary entered the appearance Chacker, Edward F. The Esquire, plaintiffs. on behalf letters, reproduced record evidences two addressed Ms. from Mr. that the had sent stating *8 terminating Unfortunately, letter her services. we original are without other record any documentation has from the certifying Despite withdrawn case. information, case, conjunction of this this lack of facts rules, compel us conclude above-cited effectively Boyce’s representation. terminated plaintiffs have has a action find that cause of Consequently, appellant we recover which she is any rightfully fees against many years present due from her of work on case. Fowkes, supra. as of the date plaintiffs accrued
Boyce’s against claim years four 1995. She has April of her termination — bring 18, 1995, or, within which April until April 5525(4). § As Pa.C.S.A. against plaintiffs. action fits within such, as one which classify appeal we cannot The рresent order doctrine. the confines of the collateral which, post if review is not involve a question does case, irreparably be until final will poned judgement lost; viable for meruit claim will remain appellant’s quantum 313(b). virtually generally Pa.R.A.P. years. three more Int’l, Inc., 393, 676 A.2d DiLucido v. Terminix (1996) (case analy a cоllateral order doctrine conducting 313 since the 1992 amendments to upon sis based Pa.R.A.P. Procedure). Appellate the Rules of interlocutory unap- that the order is Finding order, need not address and not a collateral we pealable We, therefore, appeal. quash substantive issues. Boycе’s quashed. Appeal
BECK, J., dissenting files a statement.
BECK, dissenting: Judge, majority’s quash
I must from the decision to dissent Proce- appeal. According Operating instant to our Internal dures, prior denying quash the full court’s orders motions or to be the law of the dismiss an “shall be deemed H; at 636-637 n. 1. Majority Opinion case.” I.O.P. 302 I to over- agree majority’s Because cannot with the decision Procedures, I we should Operating rule the Internal believe the merits of the appeal. decide