Recently, the Superior Court in Glover v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., was faced with claims against an attorney arising out of section 406 of Act 6, which deals with the receipt of attorneys’ fees by residential mortgage lenders. The plaintiff argued section 406 of Act 6 should be read broadly to include the mortgage lender’s foreclosure attorney. The court rejected this argument based upon the plain language of the statute.
The Superior Court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claim. The court relied on Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held an attorney’s conduct fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to regulate the conduct of attorneys and, therefore, plaintiffs could not maintain a UTPCPL claim based on that conduct. In Beyers, the Supreme Court further held it has the exclusive power to govern the conduct of attorneys practicing law in the Commonwealth pursuant to Article V § 10(c) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.–Josh J.T. Byrne, Esquire