Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo
Decision Date | 05 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. B092041,B092041 |
Citation | 54 Cal.App.4th 1102,63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3352, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5736 Daniel POWERS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DICKSON, CARLSON & CAMPILLO et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Archbald & Spray, Kenneth L. Moes and Karen Burgett, Santa Barbara, for Defendants and Appellants.
Valensi, Rose & Magaram, M. Laurie Murphy and Kenneth L. Heisz, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Defendants and appellants Dickson, Carlson & Campillo; Maguire, Toghia & Orbach; and Nicholas J. Toghia appeal from the denial of their petition to compel arbitration in this legal malpractice action brought by plaintiffs and respondents Daniel and Fala Powers. 1 We conclude that the arbitration provisions of the initial retainer agreement and its amendment are enforceable and applicable
to legal malpractice actions. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In 1992, the Powers purchased a $2 million luxury home in the Pacific Palisades. They were represented in the negotiations by Attorney Roy Glickman of the law firm of Narvid, Glickman, Scott & Frangie (collectively Glickman). The Powers signed a written purchase agreement with the seller/developer of the property. This written purchase agreement contained an arbitration provision. After moving into the home, the Powers became aware of construction defects. They retained Attorney Glickman to represent them in connection with the resolution of these construction defect disputes with the seller/developer. In November 1992, Attorney Glickman demanded arbitration on behalf of the Powers and the matter proceeded to arbitration.
In March 1993, the Powers became dissatisfied with both the pace of the arbitration and Attorney Glickman. They contacted Nicholas J. Toghia with the law firm of Maguire, Toghia & Orbach (MTO). The Powers retained Attorney Toghia to represent them in the construction defects arbitration on an hourly fee basis. The Powers met with Attorney Toghia at his office on March 3, 1993, and signed a four-page "Attorney Retainer and Fee Agreement." The Agreement contained 12 numbered paragraphs: scope of agreement; duties of attorney and client; attorney's billing and case management; costs and expenses; attorney's statements; attorney's lien; professional liability coverage; termination or withdrawal; termination or conclusion; binding arbitration; authority of client; and client's deposit. Numbered paragraph 10, concerning arbitration, provided in full as follows:
In July 1993, Attorney Toghia moved from MTO to the law firm of Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (DCC). In August 1993, the Powers became concerned about their financial arrangements with Attorney Toghia, which were becoming expensive. On September 9, 1993, the Powers and Attorney Toghia modified their financial arrangements by entering into a "First Amendment to Attorney Retainer and Fee Agreement," which changed their fee arrangement from hourly to flat fee. This amendment was four pages long and included an introduction, a paragraph detailing the background and description of the pending arbitration case, and seven numbered paragraphs: conditions; scope of services; clients' duties; fees; no representations; arbitration; and affirmation of the original attorney retainer and fee agreement. Numbered paragraph 6, concerning arbitration, provided in full as follows:
On January 3, 1995, the Powers sued Attorney Glickman, Attorney Toghia and their respective law firms for legal malpractice. The Powers alleged Attorney Glickman had been negligent in negotiating and drafting the purchase agreement. The Powers further alleged that Attorneys Glickman and Toghia had both been negligent in prosecuting the Powers' construction defects claim in an arbitration proceeding, when the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement was inapplicable. Finally, the Powers alleged that Attorney Toghia had caused them to incur great unnecessary expense in prosecuting the arbitration proceeding.
On February 7, 1995, Attorney Toghia and his law firms petitioned the trial court to compel arbitration of the Powers' legal malpractice action against them. On February 21, 1995, Glickman answered the complaint. On March 1, 1995, the Powers opposed Attorney Toghia's motion to compel arbitration. The Powers' opposition contended that the arbitration provisions in the two retainer agreements were not enforceable because the Powers had not been advised by Attorney Toghia that they were giving up their right to a jury trial in any legal malpractice action which they might subsequently bring against Attorney Toghia. They also argued that attorney-client arbitration agreements were subject to strict scrutiny for conflict of interest, and the arbitration provisions were required to be in 10-point bold red type. The Powers further contended that even if the arbitration provisions were enforceable, they should not be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, which gives the trial court discretion to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement where the action involves third parties who are not subject to the arbitration agreement.
The trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration relying on Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1501, 256 Cal.Rptr. 6 and two opinions of the State Bar, Nos.1989-116 and 1977-47. The trial court determined that an agreement between an attorney and a client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims must be strictly scrutinized. The trial court found:
As a general rule, a written agreement to arbitrate a future controversy is valid and enforceable and requires no special waivers or provisions. Exceptions to the general rule may apply if the arbitration provision is included within an adhesion contract or the scope of the arbitration provision is ambiguous. An attorney may ethically, and without conflict of interest, include in an initial retainer agreement with a client a provision requiring the arbitration of both fee disputes and legal malpractice claims.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
...unless the interpretation turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence.' [Citation.]" (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1111, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 (Powers).) The second statement is also an improper lay opinion (as well as hearsay and irrelevant) because i......
-
Federici v. Gursey Schneider & Co., Llp
...24 Cal.Rptr.3d 474.) The substantive law governing this appeal is also well established. In Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 (Powers), we explained: "As a general rule, a written agreement to arbitrate a future controversy is an......
-
Founding Members v. Nbcc
...evidence is admissible to prove a meaning to which the contract is reasonably susceptible. (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal. App.4th 1102, 1111, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261; Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554.) If the trial court decides, after rece......
-
Badie v. Bank of America
...Oceanside 84, Ltd. v. Fidelity Federal Bank, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1448, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 487; Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1112, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261.) Interpretation of a contract is solely a question of law unless the interpretation turns upon the c......
-
The Virtues And Vices Of Arbitrating Legal Malpractice Cases
...& Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1309 (Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P); Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Powers).) Sometimes, however, attorneys are better served litigating a client's legal malpractice claim in a court of law, with its formality......
-
Trial by Jury in Real Property Cases
...Evid. § 310(a).18. Lindstrom v. Hertz Corp., 81 Cal. App. 4th 644, 651-52 (2000).19. Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, 54 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1111 (1997); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69 Cal. 2d 33, 36-37 (1968).20. Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, 36 C......
-
A new way to go: arbitration of legal malpractice claims.
...Webber Group Inc., 724 F.supp. 224, 227 (S.D. N.Y. 1989). [4.] 256 Cal.Rptr. 6 (Cal.App. 1989). [5.] 591 A.2d 1286 (D.C. 1991). [6.] 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 (Cal.App.1997), modified (no change in judgment), 1997 WL 277369 (May 23, [7.] 591 A.2d at 1288, emphasis supplied by court. IADC member Jo......
-
Arbitration Clauses in Family Law Attorney Fee Agreement
...1285, et seq.4. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1290.4(b)(1).5. Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-400.6. Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, 54 Cal.App.4th 1102 (1997).7. See Quintilliani v. Mannerino, 62 Cal.App.4th 54 (1998).8. See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psyche Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4t......