Pietragallo recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®

2023/11/02

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving fourteen Tier 1 Metro rankings in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These fourteen rankings include: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Health Care Law (PHL) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation – Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor & Employment (PGH & PHL) Litigation – Real Estate (PGH) Litigation – Trusts & Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) In addition to the Tier 1 Metro rankings, Pietragallo also received ten Tier 2 and Tier 3 Metro rankings: Tier 2 Metro firm in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and West Palm Beach in the respective practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Employment Law – Management, and Litigation – Intellectual Property. Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh and West Palm Beach in the respective practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Construction Law, Litigation – Construction, and Criminal Defense: White-Collar Pietragallo has also been named as a Tier 2 National firm in Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Prior to merging with Pietragallo, Gentile Horoho & Avalli P.C. (GHA) was slated to be ranked as a Tier 1 Metro firm in Pittsburgh for their work in Family Law and a Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh for their work in Litigation – Trusts & Estates, and Trusts & Estates Law. All seven GHA attorneys, well-known for their experience in complex and high net-worth divorce and custody disputes as well as intricate estate/trust cases, have joined Pietragallo. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Read More

26 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2024 The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch

2023/08/17

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 26 lawyers have been named as 2024 The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch. In addition, partner Marc Stephen Raspanti have received “Lawyer of the Year” award for his work in Health Care Law in Philadelphia. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their process is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America: Gaetan Alfano Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Employment Law – Individuals Employment Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Charles Avalli Family Law Litigation – Trusts and Estates Trusts and Estates Joseph J. Bosick Construction Law Pamela Coyle Brecht Qui Tam Law Kerri Lee Cappella Family Law Phillip R. Earnest Construction Law Insurance Law Litigation – Construction Mark Gordon Insurance Law Litigation-Insurance Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Kenneth Horoho, Jr. Family Law David E. Lamm Product Liability Litigation – Defendants James F. Marrion Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Richard J. Parks Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Corporate Law Litigation – Real Estate William Pietragallo, II Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Workers’ Compensation Law – Employer Kevin E. Raphael Criminal Defense: White-Collar Health Care Law Marc Stephen Raspanti Criminal Defense: White-Collar Health Care Law – Lawyer of the Year Qui Tam Law Lourdes Sánchez Ridge Criminal Defense: White-Collar Douglas K. Rosenblum Corporate Compliance Law Criminal Defense: White-Collar Clem C. Trischler Commercial Litigation Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Robert D. Weinberg Family Law Peter St. Tienne Wolff Commercial Litigation Litigation – Trusts and Estates Trusts and Estates   The following were chosen as Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch® in America: John W. Read More

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP and Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C. to Merge

2023/08/01

Business and Commercial Litigation Firm Adds Family Law and Estate Administration/Orphans’ Court Practice AUGUST 1, 2023 – Two established Pittsburgh law firms have agreed to merge, bringing a highly-experienced family law and estate planning, administration, and litigation practice to a nationally-recognized business and litigation firm. Effective August 1, 2023, Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C (GHA) will merge with Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP (Pietragallo). All seven GHA attorneys, well-known for their experience in complex and high net-worth divorce and custody disputes as well as intricate estate/trust cases will now join Pietragallo, a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm, with offices in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Sharon, PA, Steubenville, OH, Weirton, WV, and Palm Beach Gardens, FL. The merger comes on the heels of Pietragallo’s expansion into Palm Beach Gardens in 2022. Pietragallo’s clients range from Fortune 200 and large privately-held companies to municipal entities and entrepreneurial businesses in a broad diversity of industries and business sectors. Gentile, Horoho & Avalli brings to Pietragallo more than 30 years of experience in providing exceptional legal counsel in the areas of family law and estates and trusts as well as complex orphans’ court litigation. “We are excited to engage with these outstanding practitioners in a new sphere of domestic-business litigation,” said Pietragallo chairman William Pietragallo II. “Our practices share a common commitment to achieving results.” “The lawyers at Pietragallo have distinguished themselves as leaders in our profession and in the communities they serve,” said Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr. “The blending of our two firms will provide our current clients with experienced business litigation attorneys who are known for problem-solving and results.” The family law/estate litigation attorneys joining Pietragallo include: Kenneth Horoho, Jr., Partner Charles Avalli, Partner Kerri Lee Cappella, Partner Carla Schiff Donnelly, Partner Lorraine W. Mervan, Special Counsel Robert D. Weinberg, Associate Adam J. Read More

Competing Duties of a Life Insurance Agent: The Potential for a Conflict of Interest in the Sale of Life Insurance Policies and Annuities

2023/06/15

The legal and regulatory scheme is set up in favor of life insurance companies to the detriment of the agents and customers. The imbalance of duties imposed upon a life insurance agent in the sale of life insurance policies and annuities to a client presents a potential conflict of interest. Life insurance agents owe a fiduciary duty to the life insurance company as a result of their appointment as an agent. State laws provide for a fiduciary duty by agents to their principals. In this case, the life insurance companies are the principals of their agents. As private equity firms acquire for-profit life insurance and annuity companies, many are highlighting financial engineering concerns that threaten their solvency and the promises and financial security of their insureds. Also, demutualization and overall financial market conditions are raising similar concerns. As a result, life insurance and annuity agents are debating the nature of their duty to their clients, their insurer/principals, and the consideration of replacement products as a solution. This article focuses on these duties, considerations, and process. Sources of the duty include: Statutory law (mostly State, but in some instances, Federal). Common law. Life agent’s appointment contract with the insurer/principal. NAIC, including Best Interest Model Regulation (#275) in states where it has been adopted. Professional and organizational code of ethics and standards. In most states, life insurance agents in the sale of policies and annuities owe a greater duty to the insurer/principal than to their client. The duty owed to the insurer/principal is a fiduciary duty – the highest duty that is required under the law! Life insurance agents in the sale of policies and annuities must have the insurer/principal’s best interests ahead of their own. In contrast, life insurance agents in the sale of policies and annuities do not owe a fiduciary duty to their clients in most states; the applicable duty is a lower ordinary care standard, and imposition of an implied contract in most states. Read More

Privacy vs. Productivity: Risks That Come to Employers

2023/05/31

Takeaway: On both a federal and state level, there has been a concerted push to protect employee privacy more thoroughly. As the law continues to develop or, as in the case of the NLRB, new methods of enforcement come into play, employers must balance the desire to monitor employee activity with the legal risk it may pose. It is in the best interest of employers to keep pace with the evolving body of law and ensure appropriate employee monitoring policies are in place. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many changes to employee privacy laws as more and more employees work remotely. As more technology is developed that allows for new forms of employee productivity monitoring, employers must be aware potential legal exposures. Recently, at the end of 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued Memorandum GC 23-02 signaling a new initiative to protect the privacy of employees from employer methods of monitoring and tracking. As background, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) guarantees employees the right to unionize and advance their interests, while Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee’s Section 7 rights. Of the utmost concern for NLRB General Counsel was the possibility that such oversight by employers would impede the Section 7 rights of employees who engage in protected activity. Shortly thereafter, on April 11, 2023, the NLRB issued a decision in Stern Produce Company and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 99. The employer, Stern, had installed cameras in their trucks meant to monitor different delivery activities. The employee had covered the camera during his lunch, claiming there was no such policy against doing so in the employee handbook. The employee was subsequently told to uncover his camera by a supervisor. The NLRB ruled this constituted a violation of “Section 8(a)(1) [of the NLRA] by creating the impression of surveillance by accessing the inside-facing camera…and requesting that [the employee] uncover it.” Read More

Could One Plaintiff’s Phone Call Lead to ADA Litigation? The Supreme Court Will Decide

2023/05/22

Every business or nonprofit open to the public, regardless of size, must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The ADA permits a plaintiff to sue a business for failing to provide full and equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA’s aim is laudable; however, plaintiff attorneys have begun exploiting its breadth. Plaintiff attorneys are bringing claims against businesses of all sizes on behalf of plaintiffs who may never actually intend to use the defendant’s goods, services, or facilities. These lawsuits may include allegations that a website is inaccessible to the visually impaired or that hotel beds are too high for the mobility impaired. A single law firm may file dozens of nearly identical cases, using the same plaintiff, against similarly situated businesses in a short period of time. This type of ADA litigation has become an epidemic in certain parts of the country, including in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Every business is threatened by it. The proliferation of these cases has raised basic but consequential questions of “standing,” the capacity of a particular party to bring suit. Courts, counsel, and businesses alike are asking – are a plaintiff’s “informational injuries” enough to expose businesses to suit under the ADA? May plaintiffs sue because they learn of a potential ADA violation – such as by visiting a website or calling a hotel’s front desk – or must they personally suffer a concrete injury arising from the noncompliance? The U.S. Supreme Court is stepping in to answer. During the 2023-2024 term, the Court will hear the case of Acheson Hotels v. Laufer. The plaintiff, Deborah Laufer, sued Acheson Hotels LLC for failing to sufficiently provide information on its website about accessible hotel rooms, despite no indication that Ms. Laufer intended to patronize the hotel. Ms. Read More

21 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2023 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

2023/05/19

Pietragallo is pleased to announce that 21 lawyers have been named to the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list. Super Lawyers is a service of Thomson Reuters legal division which compiles a list of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. Each year, a research team at Super Lawyers conducts a multi-phase selection process reviewing independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.  Five percent of lawyers are selected to Super Lawyers and two and a half percent to Rising Stars. The following were recognized in the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list: Gaetan J. Alfano Joseph J. Bosick Mark Gordon Brennan Hart Christopher A. Iacono Michael A. Morse William Pietragallo, II Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Kevin E. Raphael Marc S. Raspanti (Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 in Philadelphia) Lourdes Sánchez Ridge Douglas K. Rosenblum Clem C. Trischler Paul K. Vey The following were recognized in the 2023 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list: Jeremy E. Abay Rebecca Johnson Barksdale Ashley Kenny John Kettering Alexander M. Owens Peter St. Tienne Wolff To read more, click here. About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.   Read More

Let the Record Reflect, There Are No “Usual Stipulations”

2023/02/23

By The Legal Intelligencer’s The Young Lawyer Editorial Board Let’s set the record straight. There are no “usual stipulations” that apply to depositions. Although some attorneys may share a vague understanding about the usual stipulations, the phrase has no established meaning. In fact, there is no rule, case, or statute that defines the usual stipulations. “Everyone purports to know without asking the content of the ‘usual stipulations’ until a dispute arises; the ephemeral nature of the parties’ understanding is then quite apparent.” See United States v. Liquid Sugars, 158 F.R.D. 466, 473 n.8 (E.D. Cal. 1994). Because the phrase has no accepted meaning, an attorney should respond to a proposal for the usual stipulations by asking, “What do you mean by the usual stipulations?” The question might elicit shock, anger, or some patronizing retort like, “I’m surprised you don’t know what the usual stipulations are.” You may feel tempted to agree to the usual stipulations without any clarification. This is especially true for newer lawyers, who fear that asking for an explanation will reveal their inexperience. But there is no reason to be embarrassed. In all likelihood, the attorney proposing the usual stipulations has no idea what the phrase means. Many attorneys simply mimic what they perceive to be a common practice without questioning whether the practice makes sense. These same attorneys might argue, “I’ve done hundreds of depositions, and no one has ever refused the usual stipulations.” That may be true, but a prevalent practice can still be a flawed practice. Consider these two common versions of the usual stipulations: “reserving all objections until trial or there is an attempt to use the deposition” or “reserving all objections except to the form of a question.” While neither helps the taking attorney, both give the defending attorney a strategic advantage beyond what the rules provide. Read More

Proportionality, Preservation, and Cost-Sharing: A Reminder on E-Discovery Considerations

2023/01/19

Pretrial practice and discovery are critical stages of the litigation process, as they allow parties to gather and exchange information relevant to the case before it goes to trial. In recent years, the issue of e-discovery has become increasingly prevalent in pretrial practice, as more information is stored electronically. This has led to significant changes in how parties manage discovery, as well as how courts interpret and apply the rules governing e-discovery. A case that highlights these challenges is Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 1:2011cv01279 (S.D.N.Y 2012). In this case, the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, brought an employment-discrimination-and-retaliation lawsuit against her former employer. During the discovery process, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s request for electronic documents was overly broad and unduly burdensome. The court ultimately agreed and ordered the defendant to produce only a limited set of electronic documents. The Da Silva Moore case illustrates the importance of proportionality in e-discovery. The court recognized that, while the defendant had a duty to preserve and produce relevant electronic documents, the plaintiff’s request was so broad and burdensome that it outweighed the potential benefits of producing all the requested documents. This decision demonstrates that, to avoid disputes over e-discovery, parties must be mindful of proportionality when making requests for electronic documents. The Da Silva Moore court also addressed the issue of cost shifting. The court ordered the defendant to bear the cost of producing the electronic documents, but also noted that the plaintiff may be required to reimburse the defendant for certain costs if the plaintiff ultimately loses the case. This highlights the importance of considering not only the breadth of the discovery sought but the potential the costs of that discovery, for both for the requesting party and the producing party. To mitigate the challenges of e-discovery, it is essential for attorneys and their clients to be proactive in identifying and preserving electronic documents that may be relevant to the case. Read More

Pietragallo is recognized as a “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News & World Report

2022/11/03

U.S. News & World Report recognizes Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP as a 2023 Tier 1 Metro “Best Law Firm” in twelve practice areas in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These twelve practice areas are: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Health Care Law (PHL) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation – Labor & Employment (PGH & PHL) Litigation – Health Care (PGH) Litigation – Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Trusts & Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) and Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) In addition to the Tier 1 Metro ratings, Pietragallo was named: Tier 2 Metro in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in the practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants. Tier 3 Metro in Pittsburgh and West Palm Beach in the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Construction Law, Litigation – Construction, Criminal Defense: General Practice, and Criminal Defense: White-Collar Pietragallo has also been named as Tier 2 across the nation in Litigation – Labor & Employment and Tier 3 nationally for our work in Commercial Litigation and Health Care Law. The U.S. News & World Report’s “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Lawyers also voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, whether they would refer a matter to a firm, and if they consider a firm a worthy competitor. Read More