Facts

Appellant, the law firm of Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin and Creskoff (Adler Barish), was formed in February 1976, and from then through March 1977, the appellees served as salaried associates, working on client cases under the supervision of firm partners.

While still employed, the appellees planned to establish their own firm, retaining counsel for advice, securing office space, and signing a lease in early March 1977. Shortly before departing, they obtained a $150,000 line of credit from First Pennsylvania Bank, providing as security a list of 88 Adler Barish cases they had worked on, with anticipated fees exceeding $500,000; none of these were personal matters.

Appellee Alan Epstein's employment ended on March 10, 1977, but he continued using firm offices until March 19, after which he actively solicited Adler Barish clients with active cases he had handled, contacting them by phone and in person to inform them of his departure and their option to retain him. Epstein mailed form letters to these clients, including discharge forms for Adler Barish, contingent fee agreements for himself, and stamped self-addressed envelopes to facilitate the switch. These forms, as detailed in the case record, encouraged clients to discharge Adler Barish, appoint Epstein as new counsel, and establish a contingent fee arrangement.

The other appellees, Weisbord, Wolf, and Jablon, left on April 1, 1977, and similarly solicited clients, aware of and condoning Epstein's efforts, which continued until Adler Barish filed its complaint. Through these actions, the appellees used Adler Barish cases to secure credit while employed and then solicited those same clients upon leaving, leading several clients to discharge Adler Barish.

Adler Barish, as plaintiff, filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against the former associates as defendants, alleging tortious interference with contractual and business relations and seeking to enjoin them from contacting or interfering with its clients. The court granted preliminary relief on April 4 and a final decree on May 5, permanently enjoining the contacts except for limited announcements and voluntary client choices.

The defendants appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed and dissolved the injunction. Adler Barish appealed to this Court, which granted review, stayed the Superior Court's order, and now addresses the matter.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

Does the injunction against the appellees' solicitation of Adler Barish clients violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Legal Rule

Commercial speech, such as truthful advertising of routine legal services, receives limited First Amendment protection, but states may regulate attorney conduct that violates disciplinary rules, particularly in-person solicitation that exerts undue pressure and hinders informed decisionmaking, as established in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, and Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association. The Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-103(A), prohibits lawyers from recommending their own employment to non-lawyers who have not sought such advice.

Rule Analysis

The injunction permitted the appellees to engage in truthful advertising, including mailing announcements of their new firm in accordance with DR 2-102, but prohibited direct contacts with Adler Barish clients who had active matters pending as of April 1, 1977.

The appellees violated DR 2-103(A) by recommending their own employment to clients who had not sought advice on hiring a lawyer, engaging in targeted solicitations via phone, in-person meetings, and mailed forms designed to facilitate immediate switches in representation. Such conduct frustrated rather than advanced clients' ability to make informed and reliable decisions.

Applying Ohralik, such in-person and direct solicitations posed risks of undue pressure and hasty decisions without reflection, especially given the appellees' financial interests tied to the cases through their bank credit and new firm's prospects, frustrating clients' informed choices rather than advancing them.

Conclusion

No, the injunction does not violate the Constitution. The state may constitutionally regulate the appellees' conduct because it violated disciplinary rules and posed risks of overreaching and uninformed decisionmaking, consistent with the limited protection afforded to commercial speech in this context.

Issue #2

Issue

Is Adler Barish entitled to injunctive relief under the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations?

Legal Rule

Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, one who intentionally and improperly interferes with another's contract by inducing a third party not to perform is liable for resulting pecuniary loss. Improper interference is determined by factors in § 767, including the nature of the conduct, motive, interests interfered with, interests advanced, proximity to interference, and relations between parties; absence of privilege involves weighing competing interests and societal rules, such as ethical codes.

Rule Analysis

The appellees intentionally interfered by using Adler Barish cases to secure credit while employed and then soliciting those clients upon departure, resulting in several clients discharging Adler Barish and causing pecuniary harm.

The conduct was improper under § 767 factors: it violated ethical rules against self-recommendation, was motivated by personal financial gain, interfered with Adler Barish's reasonable expectations of continued representation and fees, exploited confidential case knowledge from their employment relation, and directly caused the interference without serving any public interest.

Although former employees may compete, they may not unfairly use confidential information to prejudice their prior employer, and the appellees' departure from recognized ethical standards weighed against privilege.

Conclusion

Yes, Adler Barish is entitled to relief. The appellees' interference was improper, and the injunction was appropriate given their violation of ethical rules and the harm to Adler Barish's contractual relations.

Additional Opinions

Manderino, J.: Dissent

One of our experts is currently working on this additional opinion - please check back soon.

Justice Manderino: Dissent

Justice Manderino dissents from the majority's reinstatement of the injunction against the appellees, former associates of the Adler, Barish law firm, arguing that it violates their First Amendment free speech rights. He agrees with the Superior Court opinions by Judges Hoffman and Spaeth that injunctive relief is unwarranted, emphasizing that the appellees' mailed form letters to clients—allowing discharge of the old firm, appointment of new counsel, and creation of a contingent fee agreement—do not constitute illegal solicitation. Manderino disagrees with the majority's reliance on Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., distinguishing it as condemning coercive in-person solicitation that deprives individuals of reflection time, unlike the non-coercive, written communications here which included no pressure for immediate response, false statements, deception, or encouragement of litigation. He asserts that such direct mail solicitations are protected under the First Amendment, as they truthfully inform clients of their legal rights without the harms identified in Ohralik. Manderino concludes that the Court misuses its injunctive powers and urges affirmation of the Superior Court's order.