Loading…
BIRBROWER WAS RIGHT: FOREIGN ATTORNEYS ARE ENTITLED TO APPEAR IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATIONS HELD IN CALIFORNIA
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, PC v. Superior Court, 17 California 4th 119 (1998) (Birbrower) is undoubtedly the most significant case in California history on the subject of what non-California lawyers may or may not do in California without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law....
Saved in:
Published in: | Dispute resolution journal 2015-02, Vol.70 (1), p.51 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Magazinearticle |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, PC v. Superior Court, 17 California 4th 119 (1998) (Birbrower) is undoubtedly the most significant case in California history on the subject of what non-California lawyers may or may not do in California without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Although there's no objection to clarification of California's international commercial arbitration statutes to make the matter more clear, Birbrower had it right. Accordingly, foreign lawyers do not need an amendment in order to represent parties in international commercial arbitrations held in California. Both international commercial arbitrations and international commercial conciliations (i.e., settlement negotiations) held in California are subject to California Code of Civil Procedure Title 9.3, entitled "Arbitration and Conciliation of International Commercial Disputes." The authors note that the anti-Birbrower interpretation applies not only to the US entities and to international commercial arbitrations in which California law may apply, but also to all international commercial arbitrations -- including those exclusively limited to foreign parties and foreign law. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1074-8105 2573-606X |