Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Elliott
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided March 8, 1989PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McKUSICK, Chief Justice.
On this appeal by a practicing Maine lawyer, we reject his attack on the constitutionality of the requirement of the Maine Bar Rules that he submit to binding arbitration of a dispute with his client over the lawyer’s fee.
The Supreme Judicial Court promulgated the Maine Bar Rules in 1978. Rule 9 establishes a mechanism for binding arbitration of attorney-client fee disputes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Overseers of the Bar, and Rule 3.3(c) obligates an attorney to submit any fee dispute to Rule 9 arbitration at the client’s request. After ten years of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. BombolisSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- In Re Application of LiVolsiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- State v. GleasonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- King Resources Co. v. Environmental Improvement CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
- Board of Overseers of the Bar v. LeeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rollings v. Thermodyne Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Shimko v. LobeOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- A. Fred Miller v. PurvisAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
- In Re Estate of McCormickSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- Randall v. ConleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.