Arshonsky

Arshonsky v. Kim

Bad Law
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 777·35 Cal. App. 5th 896
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 2019B289308California3,540 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Weingart, J.

*900 David Kim appeals following the denial of his petition to compel arbitration of a fee dispute with his former attorneys pursuant to the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), Business and Professions Code section 6200, et seq. As described more fully below, the MFAA permits a client 30 days in which to request nonbinding arbitration by a local bar association of any dispute involving attorneys' fees or costs before a collection related matter can proceed. The trial court found Kim waived his right to arbitration under the MFAA by failing to request arbitration within the required 30 days. Because the denial of a petition to compel a MFAA arbitration is not an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider Kim's appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Framework of the MFAA

The MFAA establishes a system of arbitration before local bar associations in attorney fee disputes to provide "an effective inexpensive remedy to a client which does not necessitate the hiring of a second attorney." ( Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165 , 1174, 199 Cal.Rptr. 246 .) Under the MFAA, arbitration is optional for the client, but mandatory for attorneys if properly…

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.