By: Patrick Krenicky
Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP is pleased to announce that BorgerMatez, P.A., a highly regarded New Jersey divorce and family law firm has combined with WGP effective January 1, 2024. Learn more by watching the below video featuring WGP Managing Partner, Walter Weir, Jr., and Partner, Gary Borger.
By: Patrick Krenicky
Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP (WGP) is pleased to announce that Robert D. Sokolove, a nationally recognized flood causation / flood damage attorney has joined the firm as a Partner.
Mr. Sokolove has over forty years’ experience representing businesses, individuals, developers, communities, and nonprofit organizations in a wide range of legal and regulatory matters involving flood insurance, flood risks, floodplain management, sea level rise, wetland regulation, lender liability and eco-development. Mr. Sokolove regularly litigates multi-party environmental disputes, inverse condemnation matters, and flooding and wetland related cases across the United States. Mr. Sokolove represents developers and communities in connection with the creation of sustainability and environmental projects on a for-profit-basis, and created the concept of wetland mitigation banking which, since its inception, has created over seven billion dollars’ worth of saleable wetland and habitat credits around the nation. Mr. Sokolove has also represented some of the largest lending institutions in the country with respect to flood risk and portfolio analysis.
Mr. Sokolove’s ability to leverage his knowledge and experience into tangible positive results for clients has made him a coveted speaker at conferences, a respected expert witness, and a published writer on subjects involving flood insurance and revenue creation through green initiatives. His clients include some of the largest developers and organizations in the country.
Managing Partner Walter Weir, Jr. said, “WGP is honored to welcome Mr. Sokolove to our team. His experience and unique ability to find creative solutions to complex matters will be an invaluable asset to our firm’s clients. We look forward to growing this practice to better serve the community in this very important field of law.”
Mr. Sokolove is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court for the State of Maryland, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as well as the Court of Appeals, Maryland, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Claims Court.
In addition to his law degree, Mr. Sokolove holds a Certificate in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of California at Davis, which is extremely helpful when litigating flood matters and advising lenders, municipalities, developers, and real estate entities.
Mr. Sokolove was born and raised in Levittown, PA. He currently shares a dual residency between New Jersey and Florida with his wife, Caroline, and their French Bulldog, Little Debbie.
Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP is a full-service law firm providing sophisticated representation to businesses and individuals in such areas as Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy, Civil Rights, Complex Commercial Litigation, Corporate Restructuring & Creditors Rights, Criminal Defense, Employment, Family Law, Personal Injury, and Real Estate Transactions.
By: Patrick Krenicky
In an article titled “Crying Wolf: The Improper Use of Protection from Abuse Filings in Divorce Actions”, WGP family law attorney Stacy Forchetti explains the options available to individuals who face wrongful accusations under the Protection from Abuse Act. The article was published in “For the Defense”, the digital magazine of the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Click the link below to read the article and learn more about this important and challenging issue.
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol8_issue3_2023/index.php#/p/17
By: Patrick Krenicky
We are incredibly proud to announce that eight Weir Greenblatt Pierce (WGP) attorneys were selected for the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. Special recognition is given to Patricia V. Pierce who was named “Lawyer Of The Year” in Employment Law -Individuals for the third time in her illustrious career, Ronald L. Greenblatt who was recognized by Best Lawyers® in both Criminal Defense and Employment Law – Individuals, and Bonnie R. Golub who was newly recognized by Best Lawyers® in the areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law. Below is a list of all WGP attorneys named to the Best Lawyers in America® list:
Steven E. Angstreich—Legal Malpractice
Brett A. Datto—Labor and Employment
Bonnie R. Golub—Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Ronald L. Greenblatt—Criminal Defense: General Practice / Employment Law: Individuals
Patricia V Pierce—Employment Law: Individuals
Bella Schnall—Family Law
Peter F. Vaira—Criminal Defense: White Collar
Walter Weir, Jr.—Commercial Litigation
Additional information can be found at www.bestlawyers.com.
By: Patrick Krenicky
We are proud to announce that fourteen Weir Greenblatt Pierce lawyers have been selected for the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Congratulations to all!
Selected for the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers List: Richard T. Bobbe III, Jeffrey S. Cianciulli, Brett A. Datto, James A. Funt, Bonnie R. Golub, Ronald L. Greenblatt Patricia V. Pierce, Peter F. Vaira, Walter Weir, Jr., Alan L. Yatvin, and Marc J. Zucker
Selected for the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Stars List: Noah S. Cohen, Patrick Krenicky, and Andrew Park
By: Patrick Krenicky
“When should I file a notice of appeal?” is a question lawyers routinely ask themselves following an adverse decision at trial. Lawyers know that a notice of appeal must be filed timely to preserve a client’s appellate rights, but navigating the post-trial and appellate rules can be challenging. A recent non-precedential Superior Court decision underscores these challenges, and the importance of knowing which order to appeal from and when. In Muir v. Heller, 277 A.3d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2022), the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs following a non-jury trial, and the defendants sought post-trial relief. Twenty days later, with their post-trial motion scheduled for argument but not yet decided, the defendants filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s decision. After the trial court heard argument on the defendants’ post-trial motion, the trial court denied the defendants’ request for post-trial relief and entered judgment. The defendants did not file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s entry of judgment, but instead continued pursuing their appeal from the trial court’s earlier decision.
The Superior Court panel quashed the defendants’ appeal finding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the trial court’s decision from which the defendants appealed was an interlocutory order subject to correction following post-trial motions. It rejected the defendants’ argument that Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) was applicable, which states that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” The Court found that Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) only applies if the notice of appeal is filed after the trial court’s decision on post-trial motions and before the entry of judgment, but does not apply when a notice of appeal is filed prior to the trial court’s decision on post-trial motions. The Court thus found that the defendants’ failure to appeal timely from the entry of judgment left them without recourse on appeal.
In dissent, Judge Olson argued that the Superior Court’s decision is inconsistent with a prior published decision of the Superior Court in a criminal matter, Commonwealth v. Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2011). There, the Court found that Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) allowed it to consider an appeal even though the notice of appeal was filed after sentencing but before post-sentence motions had been decided by the trial court. The majority in Muir did not directly address Ratushny and quashed the appeal.
As the Muir decision is non-precedential, it remains unclear whether a different panel of the Superior Court would reach the same conclusion. However, the outcome is another cautionary tale to lawyers and litigants who seek to appeal an adverse decision following trial.
