Segreto

Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto

Bad Law
176 Cal. App. 4th 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 2009B211129California4,229 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

We are here concerned with a Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.) nonbinding arbitration and the proceedings which followed when the attorney, who was successful at the arbitration, was not satisfied with the amount awarded by the arbitrators. Although the client had been willing to pay the attorney the amount of the award, the attorney petitioned the trial court to “correct” the award to include additional sums. The trial court denied the petition to correct, on the basis that the attorney sought modifications to the award beyond those which could be made by the trial court on a petition to correct (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.6).

The attorney then returned to the arbitrators and obtained an “amendment” to the award to include the additional amounts sought. Within 30 days of service of the amended award, the client filed a request for a trial de novo. The attorney, believing that the amended award did not give the client an additional 30 days within which to seek a trial de novo, petitioned the trial court to confirm the amended award. The trial court concluded the client’s request for trial de novo was valid, and denied the petition. The…

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.