Littell

Shiver, McGrane & Martin v. Littell

Bad Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 106·217 Cal. App. 3d 1041·266 Cal. Rptr. 298
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 1990A038935California2,865 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Appellants Robert L. and Joyce Littell appeal from a judgment holding they did not timely commence an action within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 6204, subdivision (c) which would have precluded confirmation of an arbitration award entered against them. Appellants assert (1) the timely filing of a legal malpractice action satisfied the requirement under the Business and Professions Code that they commence “an action” to seek a trial de novo on the issues involved in the arbitration; (2) if the malpractice action did not fulfill this requirement, the court erred in denying relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473; and (3) the arbitrator’s award should be vacated due to the arbitrator’s failure to review evidence concerning the alleged malpractice. We shall affirm.

Statement of the Facts/Case

Respondent Shiver, McGrane & Martin is the successor law firm to McGrane & Martin which previously acted as attorneys for appellants. After the lawyer-client relationship ended the firm demanded payment of outstanding legal fees; appellants exercised their right to mandatory nonbinding arbitration, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.