Aronow

Aronow v. Superior Court

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2022A162662California7,329 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Aronow sued his former attorneys, Emergent LLP, Christopher Wimmer, and Peter Roldan (collectively, “Emergent,” the real parties in interest) for legal malpractice. Emergent invoked the arbitration provision in the retainer agreement, which required that any dispute be resolved by “binding arbitration before a retired judge at ADR Services, Inc., in San Francisco, California, according to the rules of that organization.” The agreement stated that Aronow “waiv[ed] [his] right to submit any dispute or any cause of action . . . to a jury or court trial. The parties shall bear their own legal fees and costs for all claims . . . .” Aronow opposed Emergent’s section 1281.2 petition to compel arbitration, challenging the arbitration provision on various grounds, including unconscionability. On August 4, 2020, the trial court granted the petition after finding the agreement was valid; there was consideration for the fee agreement; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and Emergent had not waived its right to arbitrate. 2 Aronow and Emergent agreed on ADR Services, Inc. arbitrator Hon. Alfred Chiantelli (Ret.), whose hourly rate is $600; $3,600 for a half (up…

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.