An Appeal to Collegiality

In 2025, appellate attorneys John Hare and Charles “Chip” Becker were opposing counsel at least eight times—with more than $3.5 billion in play.

In one Superior Court of Pennsylvania case with $177 million at stake, Becker, for the plaintiff, made the more successful argument. In another, Hare, for the defendant, persuaded the court to overturn a $1.09 billion judgment and to order a new trial for his client.

And after these courtroom battles? Hare, of Marshall Dennehey, and Becker, of Kline & Specter, went back to being the best of friends, working together outside of the courthouse on many projects—including co-chairing the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Historical Commission and serving together on the Supreme Court’s Commission on Judicial Independence. 

“I don’t think there’s been a week in the last 20 years when I haven’t spoken to Chip at least once a week, and some weeks multiple times, which has prompted my wife to joke that I talk to Chip more than I talk to her,” Hare says with a laugh.

For Becker’s part, Hare is often the first person he’ll call when he needs advice, law-related or otherwise. “I’ve been around a lot of appellate lawyers, and there’s no one better than John,” Becker says. “The fact that he is also a personal friend, someone I can call for guidance on personal matters, is something that means a great deal to me.” 

As for their courtroom faceoffs, they don’t keep track of wins and losses. In fact, they say such framing is overly simplistic.

“It’s not that I’m trying to beat John,” Becker says. “I don’t get to win a case by beating up on the other side. I’m going to win the case by doing as good a job, or a better job, of presenting my own version of my own argument.”

Adds Hare, “It’s never personal. No one is ever going to try to make an issue about the opponent, rather than the argument and the law.”

Colleagues describe the friendship with words like anomaly and interesting. Always in a positive way.

Maureen McBride, a partner at Lamb McErlane who often works with both, appreciates that one will call the other with heartfelt congratulations after a case. “This is a very competitive, stressful business that we’re in, and there can be a lot of tension between lawyers,” she says. “And they are gracious when others may still be stinging from a loss.”

Robert Mongeluzzi, founder of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, says it’s “how we all should act. They have handled some of the most important, complex appellate issues, one on one side, one on the other, and they fight for their clients and then walk out of the courtroom and remain friends. That’s the way it should be.”

When sharing stories, Hare and Becker are the sort who talk and laugh over each other. They’re pretty sure they met in 2004, when both were involved with the Philadelphia Appellate Courts Committee. Or was it during a Superior Court mediation? They’ve forgotten the details of the case, but there was a question about how a settlement would affect others and “we got to nerding out about elements of the law,” Hare says.

“John was probably right,” Becker interjects. 

“I don’t remember who was right,” Hare says. “But I liked him immediately.” 

The case settled for $105,000. 

At the time, Becker, who grew up in the Philadelphia area, was new to the Pennsylvania appellate court system; he’d previously practiced in North Carolina. Hare was an experienced Commonwealth appellate attorney. When Becker had questions, he reached out for guidance. 

Two decades later, their conversations are much more wide-ranging. “Sometimes it’s about cases,” Becker says. “Other times it’s because, ‘Hey, this happened…’ or ‘Did you hear about that?’”

Says Hare: “We’ve talked about 1,000 different subjects a million different times.” 

Prior to chairing the Historical Commission, they spent six years working on a book about the Supreme Court, with Hare as editor and Becker contributing to several chapters. They played major roles in planning the court’s tricentennial celebration in 2022, a two-day event at the National Constitution Center. 

They were even inducted into the prestigious invitation-only American Academy of Appellate Lawyers together. Both laugh when recalling a dinner with, as Becker says, “the Solicitor General of This, and the Solicitor General of That, and all these high-powered appellate lawyers. John leaned across the table and says, ‘What are we doing here?’ and I leaned back and said, ‘I don’t know.’”

The nature of appellate work can encourage congeniality. Advocates are presenting their cases to a panel of judges, not jurors. 

”Appellate courts in Pennsylvania are richly textured spaces,” Becker says. “The judges are keenly interested and aware of our arguments, there are a lot of people watching, and we’re trying to do our very best by our clients, our judges and the law.” 

Adds Hare, “Trial litigation is necessarily more adversarial. It’s a much more prolonged exposure. … An appellate argument can go on for a half an hour, and Chip’s at his table and I’m at my table, and we each go to the podium separately.”

Knowing each other so well affects how they prepare for cases, of course. Becker, Hare says, “is very fluid and natural and conversational in his argument style, which is what makes him so effective.

“To counter that, I have got to develop an argument that is common-sensical and grounded, and I have to try to match the very natural approach he has to a court, and that can be challenging in complicated cases,” Hare says. “He will make it very straightforward and make it seem like there’s no special issue for the court to decide and this is just a run-of-the-mill appeal. I try to demonstrate that there really is something here that the court should take a close look at.”

Facing Hare is a sobering experience, Becker says. “He’s someone who commands the respect of every single appellate judge in Pennsylvania because he’s going to present a well-grounded, meaningful presentation. When John opens his mouth, the Court is poised and the judges are totally dialed in—not necessarily to agree with him, because there’s the law and there’s facts—but to understand that what he’s saying is something they have to take seriously.” 

When repeatedly pressed as to what makes them such good friends, Becker and Hare don’t have an answer. Because they’re just friends, OK? But their mutual respect is obvious.

 Says Hare, “Chip’s reputation precedes him. The clients, even national clients, know that Chip is the premier plaintiff’s appellate lawyer in Pennsylvania.”

Becker adds, “I can say, without reservation, there is no finer lawyer practicing in the appellate courts of these United States than John Hare, period.”