Corell

Corell v. Law Firm of Fox and Fox

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 531·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 782·2005 Daily Journal DAR 5671·28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 310·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4176
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 2005B174711California2,679 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

The “recent period of rapid expansion of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism” has engendered a “proliferation of arbitration clauses in attorney retainer agreements.” (Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 985 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 , 88 P.3d 24 ].) In this case, defendant attorneys included extensive such provisions in their retainer agreement. But after receiving an initial award they deemed unsatisfactory, the attorneys abandoned their trial de novo and dismissed the lawsuit they had brought in order to obtain it. In line with established authority, we hold that the attorneys’ conduct accomplished a retraction of their request for trial de novo, and rendered the prior award final and binding.

FACTS

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Wendy Corell appeals from an order dismissing her action for declaratory relief and damages against her former attorneys, The Law Firm of Fox and Fox and its partners Henry A. Fox and Frank O. Fox (collectively Fox). The order, which also dismissed Fox’s cross-complaint for attorney fees, followed the trial court’s striking all pleadings in the case, under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, on grounds the claims asserted were all…

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.