Legal Opinion

Corell v. Law Firm of Fox and Fox

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 17, 2005No. B174711PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

COOPER, P. J.

The “recent period of rapid expansion of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism” has engendered a “proliferation of arbitration clauses in attorney retainer agreements.” (Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 985 [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 287, 88 P.3d 24].) In this case, defendant attorneys included extensive such provisions in their retainer agreement. But after receiving an initial award they deemed unsatisfactory, the attorneys abandoned their trial de novo and dismissed the lawsuit they had brought in order to obtain it. In line with established authority, we hold that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. LernerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Herbert Hawkins Realtors, Inc. v. MilheiserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Titan/Value Equities Grp., Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. Lodi v. LodiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Perez v. GrajalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Lee v. KwongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Schatz v. ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLECalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API