Schatz

Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP

Bad Law
2009 Cal. LEXIS 125·45 Cal. 4th 557·87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 700·198 P.3d 1109
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 2009No. S150371California6,911 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moreno, J.

Under the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.), 1 when there is a fee dispute between an attorney and a client, the client may choose to submit the matter to arbitration by a local bar association. If the client elects such arbitration, the attorney must agree to arbitrate. The arbitration will be binding, however, only if the attorney and client so agree in writing after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise, either party may request a trial de novo within 30 days after the arbitration has concluded.

*562 We consider in this case the relationship between arbitration under the MFAA, which authorizes a trial de novo, and a predispute contractual arbitration agreement entered into by an attorney and client pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (CAA; Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et seq.). In Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 , 88 P.3d 24 ] (Aguilar), as explained at greater length below, we determined that a client who had not chosen MFAA arbitration could not oppose a motion to compel contractual arbitration under the CAA by invoking the MFAA’s right to a trial de novo, because in not choosing MFAA arbitration, 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.