Ben Mayerson, Esq., Shareholder At Mayerson Schreiber McDevitt, P.C. To Argue Important Case Before Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The law firm of Mayerson, Schreiber & McDevitt, PC, will argue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 2, 2009. The issue is important to all Pennsylvania lawyers and is backed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association, which both filed amicus briefs in support of Mayerson’s Petition.

The issue is also important to all Pennsylvania citizens because it is at the crux of your right to access the appellate judicial system whenever it is believed that a trial judge made a substantial mistake the impacted the outcome of a trial. Specifically, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) operates as a final hurdle for all appellants to reach the higher courts. (An appellant is any person or company attempting to access the appellate courts to get a new trial when a trial judge made a mistake). Rule 1925(b) requires the appellant to file and serve the trial judge with a Concise Statement of Errors advising the trial judge of the specific errors made by the trial judge that are being raised on appeal to the Superior Court.

The Rule is currently being applied such that it is insufficient to file the Concise Statement of Errors with the trial court, as is done with every other pleading. In this one instance, the legal document called a Concise Statement of Errors must also be served upon the trial judge himself much like a Civil Action Complaint would be served upon a defendant in a lawsuit.

In this case, the appellants attempted to serve the trial judge in his chambers but the court staff refused to identify the location of the trial judge’s chambers and instead, promised to deliver the document to the trial judge within ten minutes because the trial judge was waiting for it and because the trial judge wanted the original.

After being properly filed at the court house, the original Concise Statement of Errors was thereafter delivered to the trial judge by the court’s staff exactly as promised. Nevertheless, the trial judge determined that he had not been properly served by the appellant (the appellant being the person that is claiming the trial judge made mistakes in the case), and thus all appellate issues were waived for failing to comply with Appellate Rule 1925(b). In other words, it did not matter to the trial judge that he actually received the Concise Statement of Errors because the trial judge believed he should be served by the appellant.

A three member panel of The Superior Court agreed with the trial judge and determined that all of the appellate issues had been waived for failing to provide the trial judge with personal service of the Concise Statement of Errors. Mayerson, Schreiber & McDevitt, PC, petitioned the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The Supreme Court accepts less than 5% of all petitions submitted per year, but decided the issue submitted by the Mayerson firm was of substantial importance to our system of justice. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association agreed, and filed an amicus brief in support of Mayerson’s petition.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association are non-profit, independent, voluntary organizations, representing over 29,000 lawyer members and both organizations work to promote justice, respect for the rule of law, professional excellence, and betterment of the legal profession. In order to advance jurisprudence and to promote the administration of justice, both associations will file amicus briefs in cases raising issues of vital concern to the Commonwealth’s lawyers. This issue was of particular interest to the Associations and their members because they are concerned about the application of Appellate Rule 1925(b) and the rationale supporting waiver of appellate rights based upon technical issues that do not impede meaningful appellate review. The Associations have a strong interest in ensuring the balance between court efficiency and consistency and the preservation of appellate review on the merits.

The case is being heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, in Harrisburg Pennsylvania. It will be argued by the appellants’ attorney, Ben Mayerson.