# Powell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 28, 2017 · 638 Pa. 558

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873648

## Case

- **Full name:** Gary H. POWELL v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. Joe Krentzman & Sons, Inc., Intervenor. Appeal Of: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 28, 2017
- **Citations:** 638 Pa. 558; 157 A.3d 884; 2017 Pa. LEXIS 672; 2017 WL 1151101
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baer
- **Judges:** Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873648

## Opinion text

JUSTICE BAER,
concurring and dissenting
I join the majority to the extent it holds that Appellee does not have the right to be represented by a suspended attorney in an unemployment compensation hearing. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remand this matter for further proceedings.
Appellee was informed that Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217 precluded a suspended attorney from representing him at his unemployment compensation hearing. With no serious question that he understood the basis for disqualification of his representative, and with ample time to seek a new and proper counsellor, Appellee retained yet another suspended attorney, who, consistently, was disqualified from representing him. Ultimately, Appellee proceeded pro se.
In my view, Appellee had every opportunity to obtain appropriate representation in this matter. Moreover, as was *577 recognized by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (“UCBR”), Appellee received a full and fair hearing before the referee, in which he had the opportunity to testify, submit evidence, and cross examine his employer’s witnesses. UCBR Op. at 3. Under these facts, I would not give Appellee a third hearing and a third opportunity to obtain representation.
Accordingly, I would vacate the order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate the UCBR’s order affirming the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873648. Public record. Not legal advice.