Media Center

May 3, 2026
Publications

Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC v. Salamov, No. 20-14479 (Berks C.C.P. Apr. 2, 2026)

Judges J. Benjamin Nevius, James E. Gavin, and Madelyn S. Fudeman, sitting as the full en banc Civil Division of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, have issued a detailed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Adjudication of Contempt addressing a practice that has quietly proliferated across high-volume civil dockets: the use of “appearance counsel.” Speaking with a single voice, the panel declares that this practice “ends now” in Berks County.

Key takeaways:

• Berks County’s Civil Division has prohibited appearance counsel absent prior leave of court.
• The court made clear that a lawyer’s role at a proceeding requires preparation, not just physical presence.
• The opinion identifies serious professional responsibility concerns, including competence, diligence, client communication, confidentiality, and supervision.
• The court focused on the lack of a direct attorney-client relationship and meaningful client consent to limited representation.
• The decision warns that responsibility may extend beyond the appearing lawyer to the firm and its supervising attorneys.
• Lawyers facing scheduling conflicts should seek court approval or formally associate counsel rather than rely on third-party appearance arrangements.

What is appearance counsel?

For practitioners unfamiliar with the term, appearance counsel, sometimes called “coverage counsel” or “limited‑purpose counsel,” refers to per diem attorneys engaged to stand in for counsel of record at pre‑trial conferences, motions court, compulsory arbitration, and similar proceedings. These attorneys typically have no prior connection to the case, do not enter a formal appearance, and assume no ongoing responsibility in the matter. They are retained not by the client but by the client’s attorney of record, often through a third‑party corporate intermediary.

As the Court observes, the practice has become most visible in consumer debt collection litigation, where firms managing large dockets of routine, low‑value cases seek to reduce the cost of court appearances. But the Court notes it has also observed appearance counsel in landlord‑and‑tenant disputes, magisterial district court appeals, and other matters where the economics of litigation prioritize cost containment.

The facts of Salamov

The underlying matter was a consumer credit collection action seeking approximately $18,500. After the Court entered a scheduling order explicitly prohibiting appearance counsel, counsel of record nevertheless dispatched unaffiliated attorneys to four subsequent proceedings. When the appearance attorney failed to appear for arbitration, the Court convened an immediate non‑jury trial and entered a nonsuit, resulting in a loss of over $18,000 with no right to a de novo appeal.

The court’s analysis

The opinion is notable for its breadth. Beyond finding contempt and imposing sanctions, the Court undertakes an extensive analysis of the ethical and professional concerns raised by the institutionalized use of appearance counsel.

Competence and diligence. The Court emphasizes that the central function of an attorney appearing before a court is not mere physical presence. An appearing attorney must be prepared to make evidentiary concessions, stipulate to facts, respond to inquiries about the case, and engage meaningfully in settlement discussions. An attorney dispatched from an outside service, who has reviewed the file only minutes before the proceeding and whose instructions are limited to “appear and report,” cannot meet baseline obligations of competence and diligence under Pa.R.P.C. 1.1 and 1.3. As the Court puts it: “appearance without preparation is not appearance; it is presence alone.”

Absence of client relationship. The opinion highlights the disconnect between the appearance counsel and the client. In the arrangement at issue, the only agreements governing appearance counsel’s involvement ran between the law firm and the appearance agency, and between the agency and the appearing attorney. The client was not a party to either agreement, did not know the identity of the appearing attorney, and had never communicated with them. The Court finds this arrangement fundamentally incompatible with the informed consent required for limited‑scope representation under Pa.R.P.C. 1.2(c).

Failure to verify credentials and insurance disclosures. Counsel of record acknowledged that neither the firm nor its attorneys independently verified whether appearance counsel was licensed in Pennsylvania, in good standing, or carrying professional liability insurance. The Court’s own inquiry revealed that one of the appearance attorneys lacked malpractice insurance, a fact counsel of record learned at the contempt hearing. The Court observes that dispatching unvetted coverage counsel through a third‑party intermediary undermines compliance with Pa.R.P.C. 1.4(c)’s insurance disclosure requirement.

Confidentiality concerns. The opinion raises concerns about the transmission of case materials through the appearance agency’s online portal. Documents uploaded to a third‑party platform, potentially including privileged communications and attorney work product, may be accessible to agency personnel, other appearance attorneys, or unidentified third parties. The Court notes the absence of any protocol to prevent waiver of privilege or work‑product protection, underscoring counsel’s duty to safeguard confidential information under Pa.R.P.C. 1.6.

Supervisory responsibility. The Court addresses firm‑level accountability under Pa.R.P.C. 5.1, finding that where a firm has institutionalized dispatching coverage attorneys in defiance of court orders, the partners and managing attorneys who know of and permit the practice bear direct ethical responsibility. They cannot shield themselves by pointing to the individual attorney who entered the appearance.

What this means for lawyers in Berks County

The message from the Civil Division is unambiguous. The Court has explicitly prohibited the use of appearance counsel in all proceedings before the Civil Division, absent prior leave of court. Every attorney appearing must have satisfied all applicable admission requirements, entered their appearance, and be sufficiently prepared to competently represent the client’s interests, meaning, at a minimum, familiarity with the procedural posture, awareness of the subject of the proceeding, knowledge of the client’s objectives, and preparation to address legal issues and the opportunity for resolution.

For practitioners who handle matters in multiple counties or who occasionally face scheduling conflicts, this opinion is a reminder that legitimate options exist, including the association of local counsel or a request for accommodation from the Court. Dispatching an unfamiliar attorney through a commercial agency is not among them.

The full opinion is attached here for those wishing to review the Court’s detailed findings and legal analysis.