Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Maritrans GP, Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

602 A.2d 1277 (1992)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Maritrans GP, Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

602 A.2d 1277 (1992)

Play video

Facts

Maritrans (plaintiff) was a marine-transportation company based in Philadelphia. The law firm of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz (Pepper) (defendant), with Anthony Messina (defendant) as primary attorney, had represented Maritrans in both labor relations and corporate matters for over a decade. Messina and other Pepper attorneys became intimately familiar with all of Maritrans’s operations, including Maritrans’s business plans for dealing with its competitors. Pepper and Messina subsequently approached and began to represent those same competitors. When Maritrans objected to this conduct, Pepper and Messina argued that their actions did not constitute a legal conflict, but were merely a business conflict. Pepper proposed to continue its representation of those competitors it already represented but promised to not represent any additional competitors. Despite Maritrans’s reluctant agreement to this plan, Pepper soon thereafter made arrangements for those additional competitors to be represented by an attorney at another firm. This attorney, however, was in negotiations with Pepper to join the firm as a partner. Maritrans continued to disclose information about its plans for dealing with these competitors with its Pepper attorneys, unaware of Pepper’s continued pursuit of Maritrans’s remaining competitors. Pepper eventually terminated its representation of Maritrans. The other outside attorney joined Pepper as a partner and brought Maritrans’s remaining competitors with him to Pepper as clients. Maritrans filed a complaint against Pepper and Messina. The trial court imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting Pepper and Messina from representing Maritrans’s competitors. Pepper and Messina appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Papadakos, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership