Innovative Images, LLC v. Summerville

• Citation: 309 Ga. 675,848 S.E.2d 75
• Decision Date: 08 September 2020
• Docket Number: S19G1026
• Parties: INNOVATIVE IMAGES, LLC v. James Darren SUMMERVILLE et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

309 Ga. 675

848 S.E.2d 75

INNOVATIVE IMAGES, LLC

v.James Darren SUMMERVILLE et al.

S19G1026

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 8, 2020

Warren R. Hinds, for appellant.

Hawkins Parnell & Young, Kathryn S. Whitlock, Kelli K. Steele, for appellees.

Caleb F. Walker ; Taulbee Rushing Snipes Marsh & Hodgin, Daniel B. Snipes, amici curiae.

Nahmias, Presiding Justice.

Innovative Images, LLC ("Innovative"), sued its former attorney James Darren Summerville, Summerville Moore, P.C., and The Summerville Firm, LLC (collectively, the "Summerville Defendants"), for legal malpractice. In response, the Summerville Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit and to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties’ engagement agreement, which included a clause mandating arbitration for any dispute arising under the agreement. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the arbitration clause was "unconscionable" and thus unenforceable because it had been entered into in violation of Rule 1.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct ("GRPC") for attorneys found in Georgia Bar Rule 4-102 (d). In Division 1 of its opinion in Summerville v. Innovative Images , 349 Ga. App. 592, 826 S.E.2d 391 (2019), the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that the arbitration clause was not void as against public policy or unconscionable. See id. at 597-598, 826 S.E.2d 391. We granted Innovative's petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals's holding on this issue.

As explained below, we conclude that regardless of whether Summerville violated GRPC Rule 1.4 (b) by entering into the mandatory arbitration clause in the engagement agreement without first apprising Innovative of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration – an issue which we need not address – the clause is not void as against public policy because Innovative does not argue and no court has held that such an arbitration clause may never lawfully be included in an attorney-client contract. For similar reasons, the arbitration clause is not substantively unconscionable, and on the limited record before us, Innovative has not shown that the clause was procedurally unconscionable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.¹

1. Facts and procedural history.

As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the record shows the following:

In July 2013, Innovative retained Mr. Summerville and his law firm to represent it in post-trial proceedings following an adverse civil judgment, and the parties executed an attorney-client engagement agreement that set out the terms of the representation (the "Engagement Agreement"). A section of the Engagement Agreement entitled "Other Important Terms" included a choice-of-law clause stating that the "agreement and its performance are governed by the laws of the State of Georgia." That section of the Engagement Agreement also included an arbitration clause (the "Arbitration Clause" or the "Clause") stating:

Any dispute arising under this agreement will be submitted to arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia under the rules and procedures of the State Bar of Georgia Committee on the Arbitration of Attorney Fee Disputes, if concerning fees, or by an arbitrator to be agreed to by the parties, if concerning any other matter. Alternatively, you may choose to arbitrate any dispute arising under this agreement in Atlanta by a single arbitrator provided through the Atlanta office of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service ("JAMS"). The decision of any such arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding, conclusive, and not appealable. In the event a dispute is not or cannot be arbitrated, the parties consent to the jurisdiction of and venue in the courts of Fulton County, Georgia.

In October 2017, Innovative filed the present legal malpractice action in the State Court of Fulton County against the Summerville Defendants for the allegedly negligent post-trial representation of Innovative in the underlying civil suit, asserting claims for ... professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties. During the course of the litigation, the Summerville Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery, compel arbitration, and dismiss the legal malpractice action based on the Arbitration Clause (the "Motion to Compel Arbitration"). Innovative opposed the Motion to Compel Arbitration, contending, among other things, that the Arbitration Clause was unconscionable because the Summerville Defendants had not advised Innovative of the possible disadvantages associated with arbitration.

The trial court denied the Summerville Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, agreeing with Innovative that the Arbitration Clause was unconscionable. The trial court reasoned that although the [Georgia Arbitration Code ("GAC"), OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq.,] does not prohibit the arbitration of legal malpractice claims, Rule 1.4 (b) of the [GRPC] ... and American Bar Association ("ABA") Formal Opinion 02-425 support imposing a legal requirement on attorneys to explain to their prospective clients the possible disadvantages of binding arbitration clauses contained in attorney-client engagement contracts, such as the waiver of the right to a jury trial, the potential waiver of broad discovery, and the waiver of the right to appeal. And, because there was no evidence in the record that the Summerville Defendants explained the Arbitration Clause to their prospective client, Innovative, before the Engagement Agreement was signed, the trial court found that the Arbitration Clause was unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

Summerville , 349 Ga. App. at 593-595, 826 S.E.2d 391 (footnotes omitted).

The trial court issued a certificate of immediate review, and the Court of Appeals granted the Summerville Defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal. In its subsequent opinion reversing the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals's analysis bounced between case law and concepts related to whether a contract is unconscionable and case law and concepts related to whether a contract is void as against public policy. See Summerville , 349 Ga. App. at 595-598, 826 S.E.2d 391. The court ultimately "decline[d] to adopt a blanket rule that an arbitration clause in an attorney-client contract is unconscionable and against public policy if the attorney did not explain the potential disadvantages of the clause to his prospective client before execution of the contract." Id. at 597, 826 S.E.2d 391. The Court of Appeals also noted that this Court "has not addressed whether ABA Formal Opinion 02-425 should be adopted as the proper interpretation of [GRPC] Rule 1.4 (b)," and "for these combined reasons," concluded "that the trial court erred in finding the Arbitration Clause unconscionable and in denying the Summerville Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration." Id. at 598, 826 S.E.2d 391.

Innovative petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted, directing the parties to address two questions:

1. Under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, is an attorney required to fully apprise his or her client of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration before including a clause mandating arbitration of legal malpractice claims in the parties’ engagement agreement?

2. If so, does failing to so apprise a client render such a clause unenforceable under Georgia law?

We have now determined that we need not answer the first question to answer the second question and decide this case.

2. We can decide this case without answering the first question that we asked in granting certiorari.

We consider first the question of whether an attorney violates the GRPC by entering into an agreement with a client mandating arbitration of legal malpractice claims without first fully apprising the client of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration. As it did in the courts below, Innovative argues that because GRPC Rule 1.4 (b) is identical to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 (b), we should adopt the reasoning in ABA Formal Opinion 02-425 and conclude that Summerville violated the GRPC by entering into the Arbitration Clause without first apprising Innovative of the potential consequences of arbitration. Innovative also points to several other states that have relied on the reasoning in ABA Formal Opinion 02-425 to similarly interpret their respective rules of professional conduct.

Both GRPC Rule 1.4 (b) and ABA Model Rule 1.4 (b) say, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation." In 2002, the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 02-425, which concluded, relying principally on ABA Model Rule 1.4 (b), that lawyers must fully apprise their clients of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration before including a provision in a retainer agreement mandating arbitration of legal malpractice claims. The ABA Committee reasoned that "[b]ecause the attorney-client relationship involves professional and fiduciary duties on the part of the lawyer that generally are not present in other relationships, the retainer contract may be subject to special oversight and review" (footnotes omitted), and that the requirement that a lawyer explain to the client the type of arbitration clause at issue in this case derives from those fiduciary duties.² Courts in several states have followed the reasoning of ABA Formal Opinion 02-425, interpreting their own rules of professional conduct regarding attorney-client relationships to require the same sort of advice about prospective arbitration clauses. See, e.g., Snow v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A. , 176 A.3d 729, 737 (Me. 2017) ; Castillo v. Arrieta , 368 P.3d 1249, 1257 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) ; Hodges v. Reasonover , 103 So.3d 1069, 1077 (La. 2012).³

ABA formal opinions and the opinions of other state courts and bar associations interpreting professional conduct rules...