PITTSBURGH – A former associate attorney at a Pittsburgh law firm claims that the firm and its founding partners enriched themselves at her expense, denying her of wages that she says were due to her.
Shannon D. Sacca of Westmoreland County filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 2 versus Bunde & Roberts, P.C., Robb D. Bunde and Reid B. Roberts, all of Allegheny County.
“On or about June 1, 2018, Ms. Sacca began working for B&R as an associate attorney. After some time, B&R promoted Ms. Sacca to the title ‘shareholder;’ however, Ms. Sacca never received any ownership interest in B&R. Ms. Sacca was always a W2 employee of B&R. Upon promotion to title ‘shareholder’, B&R agreed to pay Ms. Sacca $100,000 per year in salary, plus an additional wage of 20% on origination receipts, and 15% on non-origination receipts. Under this plan, Ms. Sacca was entitled to be paid the additional wages when the money was received by B&R from the clients,” the suit says.
“Ms. Sacca tracked client receipts in a program called Clio and submitted an Excel spreadsheet/report to a paralegal employed by B&R, on a monthly basis with client receipts. The paralegal would confirm the receipt calculations within the spreadsheet/report each month, and provide the monthly total owed to Ms. Sacca to B&R’s firm administrator. At the start of Ms. Sacca’s employment, B&R paid Ms. Sacca’s non-base wages on a quarterly basis. B&R later switched to a monthly payment. Thereafter, B&R monthly payments became more irregular and only after Ms. Sacca and the other shareholders requested updates as to payment. Ms. Sacca ultimately stopped receiving non-base wage payments from B&R despite: a) The parties not agreeing to a change in the terms of her employment; b) Ms. Sacca continuing to accrue receipts on both origination and non-origination clients; c) B&R receiving funds from Ms. Sacca’s origination and non-origination clients; and d) Ms. Sacca’s repeated requests to Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts to receive her earned wage payments.”
The suit adds the defendants controlled what wage payments, if any, were paid to Ms. Sacca, controlled B&R’s employee records, including payroll, insurance and taxes and had access to Clio to determine the amount of wages owed to Ms. Sacca.
“Upon information and belief, Clio reports indicated that the funds from Ms. Sacca’s clients were used for other purposes than her wages, such as the salaries of Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts acted in their own self-interest by taking wages owed to Ms. Sacca for their personal benefit. On or around April 19, 2023, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts held a meeting with the firm attorneys, including Ms. Sacca, to discuss issues with cash flow. In this meeting, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts acknowledged that B&R owed the attorneys, including Ms. Sacca, back wages. On or around April 26, 2023, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts held another meeting wherein they asked the attorneys to come up with new proposed compensation plans. Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts then set up individual meetings with each attorney to discuss those proposed plans,” the suit states.
“On or around May 12, 2023, Ms. Sacca met Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts for the one-on-one meeting and gave them notice of her resignation. When Ms. Sacca asked when she would be paid her past due wages, Mr. Bunde told her B&R would pay her the wages owed through May 2023. A Clio report stated Ms. Sacca was due $70,839.75 in unpaid wages from September 2022 – May 2023. This number is Ms. Sacca’s wages only on amounts Ms. Sacca’s clients actually paid to B&R. On or around May 18, 2023, Ms. Sacca provided Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts with a list of all of B&R’s clients who would require a Choice of Counsel letter. Despite Ms. Sacca’s proposed revisions to the letter, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts required that their version of the letter be sent to the designated clients. The Choice of Counsel letter gave each client the option to either: continue being represented by B&R; continue being represented by Ms. Sacca; or, have the client’s file and escrow returned to the client. The letter said to the client: ‘You remain responsible to pay Bunde & Roberts, P.C. for all fees and expenses on your account, if any, incurred through May 31, 2023.’ As such, Ms. Sacca’s clients were obligated to pay B&R directly on any contractually owed amounts.”
The suit continues that on or around May 25, 2023, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts presented Ms. Sacca with a Spreadsheet of B&R clients with outstanding receivables due to B&R totaling $86,313.89.
Many clients on the Spreadsheet were not Ms. Sacca’s clients, were inactive, old, or would require being sent to collections to recoup the balance owed – but despite these factors, Mr. Bunde and Mr. Roberts allegedly instructed Ms. Sacca that “she must reach out to these clients directly and recoup the money owed as a credit against the wages B&R owed to her.”
“Under this scheme, the clients were to pay Ms. Sacca directly, in contravention of the client’s obligation to pay B&R for the legal services provided, as stated in the Choice of Counsel Letter and in the clients’ original representation agreements with B&R. As such, B&R would not have the opportunity to make the proper payroll withholdings on any amount paid to Ms. Sacca from these clients. Additionally, if Ms. Sacca were to be paid directly from a former B&R client, she would suffer adverse tax consequences, including but not limited to being required to pay both the employer’s and the employee’s share of FICA taxes. On or around May 29, 2023, when one of B&R’s clients inquired about setting up a payment plan with B&R, the firm administrator forwarded the correspondence to Ms. Sacca and stated: ‘Since you’re taking this receivable, I thought you might want to respond to [the client],” the suit says.
“Ms. Sacca declined B&R’s scheme to have these clients pay her directly, and asked that B&R pay her the unpaid wages directly. At no time did Ms. Sacca ever agree to be paid directly from B&R clients, on the Spreadsheet or otherwise, for past amounts due to B&R. At no time has a B&R client ever paid Ms. Sacca directly for past amounts due to B&R. As of the date of this filing, B&R has also failed to pay Ms. Sacca wages on receipts from her clients that B&R received after the date of her resignation.”
For counts of violating the Wage Payment and Collection Law and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking damages for $70,839.75 in unpaid wages, damages amounting to 20% on origination receipts and 15% on non-origination receipts received by B&R from Ms. Sacca’s clients from May 31, 2023 until such time as all of Ms. Sacca’s clients have paid all outstanding balances to B&R, liquidated damages equal to 25% of the total unpaid wages, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, a gross-up to account for any negative tax consequences arising of out of the judgment, costs and attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Tamra K. Van Hausen and Christine T. Elzer of Elzer Law Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-009355
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com