Michael Pisanchyn

Strong Legal Advocacy with a Personal Touch

Pisanchyn Law Firm has built a reputation for expertise in personal injury law, with many clients praising their thorough case handling and professionalism. Multiple reviews highlight the firm’s strong litigation skills, ease of communication, and positive case outcomes.

Legal Expertise & Case Handling

• “Very knowledgeable and professional counsel.” – Donna Yvette (2 months ago)
• “Impressive track record of winning cases, including those of my family and friends.” – Shayna Cicco (3 months ago)

Client Support & Responsiveness

• “Made everything super easy—did all the heavy lifting.” – Marlene Miller (1 month ago)
• “Friendly, polite, and hard workers.” – Patty Bell (4 months ago)

Diverse Case Success

• “Helped us tremendously with a construction and workers’ compensation case.” – Elena Flynn (3 months ago)

While the firm receives overwhelmingly positive feedback, reviews from earlier years provide less detail, making it harder to assess long-term trends.

Employee Perspective: Fast-Paced, Rewarding Work Environment

Pisanchyn Law Firm is described as a dynamic and engaging workplace, with employees appreciating the constant learning opportunities and strong team atmosphere.

Positive Workplace Culture

• “Fantastic place to work—not a monotonous job.” – Paralegal (March 2023)
• “Great atmosphere with hardworking staff.” – Intern (August 2024)

Support & Growth

• “Supervisors were easy to talk to, and I learned a lot.” – Paralegal (December 2024)
• “Great mentorship for law students.” – Intern (August 2024)

Public Ratings: Mixed Reviews Beyond Clients & Staff

Despite strong client and employee feedback, an external business rating of 1.0 stars (3 reviews) suggests there may be some dissatisfaction that is not reflected in other sources. Details of these lower ratings are not provided, making it unclear whether they stem from service concerns, case outcomes, or external factors.

Well-Regarded Firm with a Strong Client & Employee Reputation

Pisanchyn Law Firm is widely praised for its legal expertise, client support, and strong work environment. However, a few unexplained lower ratings indicate that potential clients should thoroughly research and ask direct questions before committing.

In a notable legal development, attorney Michael Pisanchyn of the Pisanchyn Law Firm sought over $1 million in attorney's fees following a $125,000 recovery in a bad faith insurance case. This move has sparked significant discussion within the legal community regarding the appropriateness of fee petitions relative to case outcomes.

Claims Journal: Case Background

The case involved plaintiff Bernie Clemens suing New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company for bad faith, alleging delayed payment of a car crash claim. The litigation culminated in late 2015, with a jury awarding $100,000 in punitive damages. Prior to this, the underlying uninsured motorist claim had settled for $25,000. Subsequently, lead counsel Michael Pisanchyn filed a bill of costs totaling over $1 million, encompassing attorney's fees, interest, and costs.

Aba Journal: Judicial Response

U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion of Scranton, Pennsylvania, rejected the fee request, describing it as "astounding" and "exorbitant." He highlighted that the plaintiff's counsel billed approximately 2,583 hours for this case alone, which, assuming an eight-hour workday, would mean working exclusively on this case for about 323 days. The judge found this implausible and criticized the lack of contemporaneous time records, noting that the time logs were reconstructed based on estimations.

Disciplinary Proceedings

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) initiated proceedings against Pisanchyn, alleging violations of professional conduct rules due to the excessive fee petition. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the disciplinary petition, ruling that the fee request, while substantial, did not violate professional conduct rules. The court emphasized that the petition was intended to advance the client's claim and did not inherently prejudice the administration of justice.

Implications and Analysis

This case underscores the critical importance of maintaining detailed, contemporaneous billing records in legal practice. The absence of such records can lead to disputes over the reasonableness of fee requests and potential disciplinary actions. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision provides some leeway for attorneys in advocating for their clients, it also highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing fee petitions to prevent excessive or unreasonable demands.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the necessity of transparency and accuracy in billing practices. It also illustrates the balance courts must maintain between compensating attorneys for their work and protecting clients from disproportionate fee demands.

In conclusion, while attorney Michael Pisanchyn's substantial fee petition was ultimately not deemed a violation of professional conduct rules, the case highlights the judiciary's vigilance in overseeing attorney compensation and the essential practice of meticulous timekeeping in the legal profession.