.

Scott R. Eberle

Shareholder

SREberle@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Scott R. Eberle

Scott is a shareholder in the Professional Liability Department with over 20 years of experience defending professionals against malpractice and other professional liability claims. He often defends lawyers against claims of malpractice and malicious prosecution. Scott also has extensive experience counseling lawyers on professional ethics and professional responsibility matters, including those facing disciplinary charges before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel as well as matters before the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security, the Pennsylvania Judicial Board and the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. While his practice is largely focused on defending lawyers and law firms, he also frequently defends accountants, engineers, real estate agents, insurance agents and design professionals in a variety of professional liability lawsuits.  

Scott is well known within the Pennsylvania legal community and is a frequent speaker at industry events. Among his many professional memberships, he is a member of the House of Delegates of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Co-Vice Chair of its Professional Liability Committee. He is also active in the Allegheny County Bar Association where he is a member of the Ethics and Lawyer Professional Liability Committee. Additionally, he is a member of the Professional Liability Defense Federation. 

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Scott chaired the Ethics & Legal Malpractice Team at a Pittsburgh-based firm.  A graduate of Duquesne University School of Law and DePauw University, he is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States Court of Federal Claims.
 

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2002)
    • DePauw University (B.A., 1999)
    • Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2010, 2013, 2015-2017)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association, Member of Ethics & Lawyer Professional Liability Committee
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association, Member of House of Delegates & Co-Vice Chair of Professional Liability Commitee
    • Professional Liability Defense Federation, Member
    • “Stump the Ethics Committee,” panelist, Allegheny County Bar Association (Sorg Forum), October 2026
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2026
    • “A Succession Planning Primer,” Butler County Bar Association, September 2026
    • “Stump the Ethics Committee,” panelist, Allegheny County Bar Association (Sorg Forum), May 2026
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2025
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Butler County Bar Association, September 2025
    • “Ethically Terminating the Attorney-Client Relationship,” Allegheny County Bar Association (Sorg Forum), May 2025
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2024
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Beaver County Bar Association, November 2023 
    • "Ethics Considerations," Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2023
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Butler County Bar Association, August 2023 
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Westmoreland County Bar Association, June 2023
    • "Avoiding Legal Malpractice," Pennsylvania Bar Association, June 2023
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2022
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Butler County Bar Association, September 2022
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” Clearfield County Bar Association, September 2022
    • “Risk Management for Pennsylvania Attorneys,” INtegrity First Corporation, September 2022
    • “The Ethics of Representing Entities and Their Employees,” panelist, Allegheny County Bar Association, May 2022
    • “Ethically Responding to Negative Online Reviews and Lawyer Blogging,” Allegheny County Bar Association, February 2022
    • “Avoiding Legal Malpractice – How to Get Sued in 10 Easy Steps,” Erie County Bar Association, December 2021
    • “Ethics Considerations – Responding to Negative Online Reviews,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2021
    • “Ethics Refresher for Paralegals,” Pittsburgh Paralegal Association, August 2021
    • “Ethically Terminating the Lawyer-Client Relationship,” Panelist, PBI Family Law Institute, April 2021
    • “Ethics of Medical Marijuana,” panelist, Allegheny County Bar Association, April 2021
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Criminal Law Update, December 2020
    • “Ethics Considerations,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute Auto Law Update, October 2020
    • “Ethics and Social Media,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 2019
    • “Avoiding Ethical Jams, Documenting the Representation,” Erie County Bar Association, May 2019
    • “Who Exactly is Your Client?” Pennsylvania Bar Institute, March 2019
    • “Cyber Liability and Duties of a Lawyer in the Event of a Data Breach,” Allegheny County Bar Association, December 2018

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Opinion 2025-100 Reinforces Written Fee Agreements as Essential for Compliance and Risk Management

January 1, 2026

In Formal Opinion 2025-100, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility emphasizes the importance of written fee arrangements. The recent Opinion clarifies the minimum requirements of Rule 1.5 (Fees) and discusses recommended best practices to reduce disciplinary and malpractice risk. Rule 1.5(b) requires that when a lawyer has not regularly represented a client, the basis or rate of the fee must be communicated to the client in writing before or within a reasonable time after commencement of the representation. A written communication of fees is mandatory in nearly all engagements. The only exception applies when a lawyer has regularly represented the client. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct do not define “regularly,” comment [1] to the Rule explains that the exception applies where the client has an evolved understanding of the fees to be charged. The Opinion underscores that contingent fee arrangements are treated differently. Under Rule 1.5(c), a written fee agreement is always required for a contingent fee, regardless of the lawyer’s prior relationship with the client. The written contingent fee agreement must specify how the fee and expenses will be calculated. Additionally, at the conclusion of a contingent fee matter, a written closing statement showing the outcome of the matter, the remittance to the client, and the method of the determination of the fee is also required. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct only require a written statement of the basis or rate of the fee, the Committee strongly recommends a more comprehensive written fee agreement, countersigned by the client, as a best practice to avoid malpractice claims and disciplinary complaints. Fee agreements that go beyond the minimum requirements of Rule 1.5 protect the rights and interests of both the lawyer and the client, prevent misunderstandings, and ensure the lawyer’s compliance with their communication obligations under Rule 1.4. The Committee suggests that a written fee agreement can be used to clarify, among other things, the identity of the client, the scope of the representation, and the expectations and obligations of both lawyer and client. The Opinion also reminds lawyers that the writing required by Rule 1.5 must be retained for at least five years after termination of the attorney-client relationship pursuant to Rule 1.15(c). Formal Opinion 2025-100 ultimately reinforces that written fee communications protect both clients and lawyers and are an essential part the lawyer-client relationship. Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – January 2026 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@MDWCG.com. 

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - CASE LAW UPDATE

September 1, 2025

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Upholds Agreement to Arbitrate Fee Dispute in Attorney Retainer Agreement PeriRx, LLC v. Harras, Boom & Archer, LLP, Civil No. 24-2601, 2025 WL 2447788 (E.D. of Pa. August 25, 2025) (non-precedential) The plaintiff filed a legal malpractice action against its attorneys arising out of the attorneys’ representation in a patent dispute. One of the plaintiff’s claims alleged that the attorneys misappropriated $490,000 of their funds that were in an escrow account.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, alleging the claim was covered by the arbitration provision in the parties’ retainer agreement attached as an exhibit to the plaintiff’s complaint.  The District Court construed the attorneys’ motion as a motion to compel arbitration, which they granted, finding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate fee disputes in section 4 of the retention agreement to which both parties agreed and affixed signatures.  The court further found that the plaintiff’s allegation that the attorney used funds in the escrow account to compensate herself and her firm without sufficient explanation to the plaintiff about what work those funds supposedly covered fell within the scope of the agreed upon arbitration provision. Additionally, the court compelled arbitration of a portion of the plaintiff’s negligence claim which focused on the same fee-dispute matter.    Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – September 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

News

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.