Legal Malpractice

Jurisdiction and Arbitration in a Legal Malpractice Case

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

New York corporation has a California case.  An attorney comes calling, soliciting business and asking the corporation to hire the California attorney.  They agree, and in the retainer agreement are two items.  One is a jurisdiction choice and one is an arbitration clause.  Problems arise, and a fee dispute/legal malpractice counterclaim starts.  Will it be arbitrated or tried?  Will it be in NY or California?  Justice Ling-Cohan decides in Sands Bros. Venture Capital, LLC v Burris, Schoenberg & Walden, LLP ;2010 NY Slip Op 51619(U) ;Decided on September 14, 2010
Supreme Court, New York County ;

Arbitration clauses, especially a "full clause" which covers all disputes are to be strongly upheld.  Corporations claims of "contract of adhesion" and " fraud" fail, and the general principal that arbitration is to be preferred when the parties agree to arbitration is found.  Even though California has a fee-dispute non-binding arbitration scheme, the parties are required to follow the retainer agreement and bring the binding arbitration before a specific arbitration tribunal.

As to jurisdiction for the motion and this particular case, the single visit to New York of an attorney who came to pitch representation, along with the mere fact that telephone and other communications came from California to NY is sufficient for "specific jurisdiction" arising in this case.

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on September 28, 2010 (boomark / email).