O'FLAHERTY

Appellants Michael A. O’Flaherty, John J. Weber, Lee T. Thies, Robert M. Dato, Lisa A. Cross, Mike Martinez, Lynn E. Ovando, and Gregory M. Hatton (collectively the withdrawing partners), the law firm of O’Flaherty, Cross, Martinez, Ovando & Hatton LLP (OCMOH), and the law firm of O’Flaherty, Cross, Martinez & Ovando LLP (OCMO) appeal against a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of their former partners (sometimes collectively the remaining partners) and former law firm O’Flaherty & Belgum (OB) in this matter concerning the withdrawal of the partners, dissolution of the partnership, and the appointment of a receiver for OB. Stephen L. Belgum (Belgum), his former wife Marie Belgum, and OB are the respondents.

*1047 Appellants contend as follows: (1) the arbitrator exceeded his powers by adjudicating claims that were instituted by Belgum’s attorney on behalf of OB over the objection of the receiver when such claims could be prosecuted only in the receiver’s name; (2) the arbitrator exceeded his powers by finding that the withdrawing partners had forfeited their interests in OB and that no accounting of their capital accounts was required; (3) the award…

As our Supreme Court noted in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ], “ ‘When parties agree to leave their dispute to an arbitrator, they are presumed to know that his award will be final and conclusive . . . .’ [Citation.]” “ ‘[C]onclusiveness is expected; the essence of the arbitration process is that an arbitral award shall put the dispute to rest.’ ” {Ibid.) “ ‘The parties [to an arbitration] can take a measure of comfort in knowing that the arbitrator’s award will almost certainly mean an end to the dispute.’ [Citation.]” {Ibid.) “This expectation of finality strongly informs the parties’ choice of an arbitral forum over a judicial one. The arbitrator’s decision should be the end, not the beginning, of the dispute.” {Ibid.) “Ensuring arbitral finality thus requires that judicial intervention in the arbitration process be minimized.” {Ibid.) “[T]he existence of an error of law apparent on the face of the award that causes substantial injustice does not provide grounds for judicial review.” (Id. at p. 33.) With these precepts of our Supreme Court clearly in mind, I would affirm the trial court’s order confirming this contractual…

Brown & Kellner, Michael R. Brown and Richard L. Kellner, Pasadena, for Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Ernest C. Chen, Anaheim, for Cross-defendants and Respondents O'Flaherty & Belgum, Stephen L. Belgum and Marie Belgum.

Dawn S. Theodora for Cross-defendant and Respondent Todd C. Theodora.

MOSK, J.

Appellants Michael A. O'Flaherty, John J. Weber, Lee T. Thies, Robert M. Dato, Lisa A. Cross, Mike Martinez, Lynn E. Ovando, and Gregory M. Hatton (collectively the withdrawing partners), the law firm of O'Flaherty, Cross, Martinez, Ovando & Hatton LLP (OCMOH), and the law firm of O'Flaherty, Cross, Martinez & Ovando LLP (OCMO) appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of their former partners (sometimes collectively the remaining partners) and former law firm O'Flaherty & Belgum (OB) in this matter concerning the withdrawal of the partners, dissolution of the partnership, and the appointment of a receiver for OB. Stephen L. Belgum (Belgum), his former wife Marie Belgum, and OB are the respondents.

Appellants contend as follows: (1) the arbitrator exceeded his powers by adjudicating claims that were instituted by Belgum's attorney on behalf of OB over the…