Goff

George and Esther Goff appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the law firm Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs & Shapiro, LLP 1 (the Firm), which previously represented the Goffs. The parties submitted a fee dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators issued an award for the Firm in the amount of $654,658.28 plus interest. The Goffs contend that the trial court should have vacated the award because the arbitrators exceeded their powers by ruling that the arbitration was binding. We agree and therefore reverse.

*429 BACKGROUND

I. Procedural Summary

On March 25, 2009, the Goffs and the Firm participated in a fee arbitration pursuant to the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.; MFAA) under the rules of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) and its in-house arbitration services provider, Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. (DRS). On June 22, 2009, after concluding the parties had agreed to binding arbitration, the panel of three arbitrators issued an award in favor of the Firm in the amount of $654,658.28 in fees and costs, plus 10 percent simple interest from February 10, 2007, through the date of the award.

In July 2009,…

I

The majority asks, “[c]an a court treat an arbitration award as binding and hence unreviewable solely on the grounds that the arbitrator both ruled it is binding and had authority to rule on that issue!” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 437.) As this division held in Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 468 ] (Greenspan), the parties may submit to arbitration issues they were not contractually compelled to submit to arbitration, and the arbitrator’s ruling on such issues is not reviewable by any court. Yet, ignoring Greenspan and the very limited exclusive statutory grounds for review of Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a), the majority holds otherwise.

In their briefs, appellants George and Esther Goff (the Goffs) concede they submitted the question to the arbitrators: “The Goffs do not contend that the *448 panel did not have the authority to make a ruling on the issue of whether the arbitration was binding.” 1 (Capitalization & boldface omitted.) The majority asserts that while the arbitrators could decide that question, their decision on this was nonetheless reviewable, and is reviewable as a matter of law in every case. However,…