Alternative Dispute Resolution

In Schatz v Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, the California Supreme Court ruled that California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) does not limit the ability of attorneys and clients involved in fee disputes to agree to binding contractual arbitration in advance of a fee dispute...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement 2009-03, Vol.15 (2), p.33
Main Author: Skaff, Stephanie
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Alternative dispute resolution
Arbitration
Attorneys
Disputes
Fees & charges
Intellectual property
Litigation
State court decisions
Supreme Court decisions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In Schatz v Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, the California Supreme Court ruled that California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) does not limit the ability of attorneys and clients involved in fee disputes to agree to binding contractual arbitration in advance of a fee dispute arising. The Supreme Court concluded that Section 6204(a) of the MFAA allows the parties to agree in writing to give the MFAA arbitration process binding effect. The decision in Schatz provides an important confirmation for intellectual property attorneys practicing in California that written engagement agreements with clients that contain a provision requiring binding arbitration of fees disputes will be upheld.
ISSN:1086-914X