Background
[J-10-2026] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. GREGORY LUKASIK : No. 14 MAP 2025 : : Appeal from the Order of the v. : Superior Court at No. 885 MDA : 2023, entered on April 16, 2024, : reversing and remanding the SARAH A. SCOTCHLAS : Order of the Lackawanna County : Court of Common Pleas, Civil : Division, at No. 2021-40676, APPEAL OF: RYAN P. CAMPBELL, : entered on May 5, 2023 INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF : ROTHENBERG & CAMPBELL : ARGUED: March 11, 2026 OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: July 21, 2026 The Superior Court held Appellant, Ryan P. Campbell, Esq. (“Campbell”), and his law firm, Rothenberg & Campbell, 1 jointly and severally liable for $19,072.40 in counsel fees awarded by the trial court against Campbell’s former client, Sarah Scotchlas (“Mother”). The counsel fees were awarded to Gregory Lukasik (“Father”), and Appellee Brenda M. Kobal, Esq., (“Kobal”), the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) previously assigned in Mother and Father’s custody case involving their mutual child (“Child”). We granted review to determine whether the Superior Court erred in applying County of Fulton v.
Background Several weeks after Child was born in May 2021, Mother filed a complaint in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas seeking to establish Father’s paternity. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/2023, at 1. After some initial resistance, Father eventually accepted paternity and then filed a petition for custody in August 2021. Two months later, after the parties appeared for a conciliation conference before a custody master, the trial court appointed Kobal as GAL by agreement of the parties and granted limited visitation rights to Father on a temporary basis as the custody litigation proceeded. Kobal quickly became concerned with Child’s safety, which prompted Father to file an emergency petition for special relief on November 5, 2021. That same day, the trial court issued an emergency order granting Father temporary sole legal and physical custody of Child. On November 22, 2021, the court entered an order granting Mother periods of professional supervised custody and directing the parties to submit to a comprehensive psychological evaluation. That order prohibited distribution of the psychological evaluations to clients or third parties without prior court approval. Id. at 2 (quoting Order, 11/22/2021 (“Psychological Evaluation Order”)). A hearing on Father’s petition for special relief was repeatedly continued through the following year. In the meantime, Father filed an amended custody complaint on March 29, 2023, and Mother 2 Campbell did not seek our review of the Superior Court’s decision insofar as it applied to the award of counsel fees to Father.
The Court’s Holding
Conclusion In County of Fulton, we sat as factfinder and held Fulton County’s counsel jointly and severally liable for counsel fees due to his own dilatory, obdurate, vexatious, and bad-faith conduct during an appeal and related sanctions proceedings before this Court. Thus, the Superior Court in this case erred by relying on County of Fulton to hold counsel jointly and severally liable for counsel fees regarding sanctionable conduct that occurred exclusively within the trial court. As there was no other basis upon which the Superior Court could have determined that the trial court abused its discretion in holding Mother solely responsible for Kobal’s counsel fees, we reverse that aspect of the Superior Court’s order. Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. heard in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner before a deprivation of property occurs. PA Dep’t of Corr., 306 A.3d 263 , 285 (Pa. 2023). While Campbell certainly became aware at some point that Kobal was seeking to have counsel fees awarded against him, no hearing was conducted to determine whether his conduct in filing the Second Removal Petition (independent from Mother) was sanctionable. Thus, Campbell had no meaningful opportunity to be heard. Moreover, and without implying he had burden to do so, we note that once the trial court denied Kobal’s motion for reconsideration, Campbell had no reason to demand a hearing regarding his own culpability having already prevailed on that question. [J-10-2026] – 34
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- Conclusion In County of Fulton, we sat as factfinder and held Fulton County’s counsel jointly and severally liable for counsel fees due to his own dilatory, obdurate, vexatious, and bad-faith conduct during an appeal and related sanctions proceedings before this Court.
- Thus, the Superior Court in this case erred by relying on County of Fulton to hold counsel jointly and severally liable for counsel fees regarding sanctionable conduct that occurred exclusively within the trial court.
- As there was no other basis upon which the Superior Court could have determined that the trial court abused its discretion in holding Mother solely responsible for Kobal’s counsel fees, we reverse that aspect of the Superior Court’s order.
Why It Matters
As there was no other basis upon which the Superior Court could have determined that the trial court abused its… Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.