Legal Opinion

Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP

California Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 2009No. S150371PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

Under the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.),1 when there is a fee dispute between an attorney and a client, the client may choose to submit the matter to arbitration by a local bar association. If the client elects such arbitration, the attorney must agree to arbitrate. The arbitration will be binding, however, only if the attorney and client so agree in writing after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise, either party may request a trial de novo within 30 days after the arbitration has concluded.

*562We consider in this case the relationship…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Wells v. One2One Learning FoundationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Aguilar v. LernerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Charles J. Rounds Co. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42California Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Poet v. State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. MorenoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011

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

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

Powered by the Exa API