- 37 -
enforced the precise terms of the contract between Lynch and the
estate, rather than invoking its equity powers by modifying and
reforming the contract, Lynch would not have been ordered to pay
back any funds to the estate. He was paid the amount provided
for in the contract.
All in all, the reasonable inferences to be drawn from these
facts and from the record as a whole are that this was merely a
fee dispute between Lynch and the present administratrix of the
estate. The facts establish that petitioner never asserted a
theft by Lynch in the Orphans' Court proceedings or in the
appeals; that no criminal action for theft has ever been brought
against Lynch by the district attorney; that no charges of
unprofessional conduct have been filed against Lynch; and that
the administratrix has filed no claim with the Pennsylvania
Lawyers Fund for Client Security charging that Lynch stole or
otherwise defalcated the estate's funds. We think it is
important to point out that Arthur Littleton, the general counsel
for the Client Security Fund, testified that in circumstances
similar to this case a claim would have been considered a fee
dispute for which the Client Security Fund would not have paid.
On August 7, 1978, Mary Orlando, then administratrix of the
estate, entered into an agreement with Lynch to locate securities
stolen from Philip Meriano on or about July 6, 1977. The
agreement provided that Lynch would receive 33-1/3 percent of the
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011