PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh attorney maintains that his former law firm breached his employment contract and owes him thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, in violation of both state and federal law.
Jeffrey D. Mulrooney, Esq. first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 6 versus Keevican Weiss & Bauerle, LLC. Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiff Jeffrey D. Mulrooney Esquire was previously employed by KW&B, by way of an attorney employment contract, as a member attorney, which is dated Oct. 10, 2014. As per Mulrooney’s employment contract dated he was entitled to compensation in the amount of $120,000 per year, to be paid in monthly installments of $10,000. Mulrooney was also entitled to be compensated at a rate of 10 percent for all work that he originated for his employer. During the many years Mulrooney provided services to KW&B, his regular pay was habitually late,” the suit said.
“Mulrooney has voluminous communications with KW&B showing that he was habitually paid late in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and in prior years. Mulrooney ended his employment relationship with your KW&B in August of 2022 and still has not been paid for his services. Additionally, Mulrooney personally contacted Leo A. Keevican, Jr., James F. Bauerle, and John Hall in August, November and December of 2022 and again in January of 2023, to request an accounting for his commissions. Keevican personally responded on Dec. 5, 2022, that the accounting would be forthcoming, but to date nothing has been provided.”
The suit added Mulrooney also sent an email inquiring into the status of his unpaid wages in mid-late March 2023; wherein, KW&B alleged an accounting would be done in the next week or so, however, to date, KW&B has not done the accounting or paid Mulrooney his due and just wages.
Mulrooney said he calculated a loss of $50,652.17 in gross wages and an estimated loss of $17,000 in origination fees owed to him by KW&B, wherein, KW&B’s failures, refusals or conduct in this regard constitute a violation of state and federal wage law, and that these wages had remained unpaid for 30 days.
According to the plaintiff, this constituted a clear violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act, as well as, a clear violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act – in addition to a breach of the plaintiff’s employment contract and unjust enrichment.
“KW&B has clearly and willfully violated the PA MWA, PA WPCA and FLSA and Mulrooney is entitled to recover any legal fees or costs associated with bringing a legal action against KW&B to collect his wages, in addition to, liquidated damages and a statutory penalties ranging between $1,000 and $10,000. With respect to KW&B’s clear and willful violation of the PA MWA 43 P.S. Sections 333.101 through 333.113, Mulrooney is entitled to recover any costs associated with bringing a legal action to collect his due wages, in addition to reasonable attorney’s fees. With respect to KW&B’s clear and willful violation of the PA WPCA 43 P.S. Section 260.9 (a) and Section 260.10, Mulrooney, is entitled to recover the wages owed with a ten percent statutory penalty. Mulrooney is also entitled to costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees from KW&B under PA WPCA,” the suit stated.
“Additionally, under the PA WPCA, Mulrooney is entitled to recover liquidated damages against KW&B, which requires an award of an amount equal to twenty-five percent of the total amount of wages due, or $500, whichever is greater. KW&B continues to use and benefit from Mulrooney’s name and likeness via his attorney profile listing his legal expertise on their website. It is believed and therefor averred that his profile is listed to portray that KW&B as having an array of specialized attorneys on its roster in order to secure additional clients. The same constitutes and is appropriation of name or likeness under the Restatement (Second) of Torts 2d Section 652C.”
The defendant filed an answer, new matter and counterclaim on May 10, which took complete issue with the plaintiff’s presentation of the events in question.
“Plaintiff was not ‘entitled to compensation.’ Rather he had the opportunity to earn compensation by his performance. Specifically, plaintiff was hired to head defendant’s intellectual property law practice and to grow that practice with both existing clients and new clients. Plaintiff failed to perform those responsibilities. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, defendant asked plaintiff to meet with existing clients about their needs but he failed to do so, plaintiff failed to show up for work in defendant’s offices for extended periods of time, and plaintiff took no steps to build awareness of defendant’s intellectual property law capabilities in the markets defendant served,” the answer stated, in part.
“Plaintiff was not ‘entitled to compensation at a rate of 10% for all work that he originated for his employer.’ Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to earn additional income by originating business for defendant. To the extent plaintiff did originate business for defendant, plaintiff’s write-offs of fees exceeded any income plaintiff might have earned on account of origination. The term ‘habitually late’ is not defined. Plaintiff was hired to head defendant’s intellectual property law practice and to grow that practice with both existing clients and new clients. As previously stated, plaintiff failed to perform those responsibilities.”
According to the defense, “Given plaintiff’s performance, defendant compensated plaintiff in an amount that exceeded plaintiff’s contribution to defendant’s law practice.”
“The plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff does not have standing to bring one or more of the claims averred. The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. Defendant is entitled to an offset against plaintiff’s claims based on the damages suffered by defendant as a result of plaintiff’s breach of his employment duties,” the new matter continued.
The defendant then brought counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the plaintiff.
UPDATE
On June 20, the plaintiff replied to the answer, new matter and counterclaim, denying them and their supporting rationales in their entirety.
The plaintiff “made it known several times that he was owed certain sums of money that were never paid as outlined in his complaint” and “never waived his rights to compensation” – and furthermore, that the plaintiff “never breached his employment duties with the defendants”, evidenced by his being offered “an of counsel position when he terminated his employment.”
“Defendant’s counterclaim fails so state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Despite their manufactured claims regarding plaintiff’s job performance, defendants actually pleaded with plaintiff to stay when he announced his departure from the firm. Further, they offered him an of counsel position with the firm after his departure, which he declined. Plaintiff was never reprimanded regarding his job performance. Plaintiff’s job performance was at all times satisfactory or exemplary. Defendant’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in that they accepted plaintiff’s services without complaint and only withheld payment after the fact. Defendants have waived any potential claim for breach of contract and as such the doctrine of waiver applies,” the reply filing stated, in part.
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy/appropriation of name or likeness, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Unpaid wages to the fullest extent permitted under the law;
• Pre-judgment interest to the fullest extent permitted under the law;
• Liquidated damages to the fullest extent permitted under the law;
• Statutory damages to the fullest extent permitted under the law;
• Actual damages, compensatory damages, special damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, or any other damage not herein mentioned which may be recovered according to the laws of Pennsylvania and the United States;
• Litigation costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees to the fullest extent permitted under the law;
• Any other damage not herein mentioned and recoverable by law, or other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper; and
• A trial by jury on all issues.
The plaintiff is represented by Louis J. Kroeck IV of LJK Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by James F. Bauerle of Keevican Weiss & Bauerle, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-004749
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com