Glassman

Glassman v. McNab

Bad Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 1593·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1648·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12091·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 293·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9601
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2003B157578California3,278 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

When respondent Paul R. Glassman, an attorney, requested payment for his services from appellants Cecil McNab and Scirocco Partners, appellants sought arbitration of Classman’s claim pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. The arbitrators subsequently issued an award in Glassman’s favor, and the trial court confirmed the award. Appellants contend that the trial court erred, arguing that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction under Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., in determining that an attorney-client relationship existed between appellants and Glassman.

We affirm.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 16, 1999, appellants submitted a petition for arbitration to the Los Angeles County seeking mandatory and binding arbitration of an attorney fee dispute. The petition alleged that Glassman, an attorney, sought $41,483.23 in fees from appellants, who denied the validity and basis of Glassman’s claim.

Glassman’s reply alleged that appellants had retained him pursuant to written agreement to serve as their agent in a then-pending bankruptcy proceeding. The reply further alleged that Glassman had secured a…

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.