United States: The Virtues And Vices Of Arbitrating Legal Malpractice Cases

California courts recognize that arbitration is a favored method of resolving disputes. (Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1501, 1505 (Lawrence).) Arbitration can be fast, private, and provide a more sophisticated trier of fact. As such, lawyers frequently draft retainer agreements that require their clients to arbitrate legal malpractice claims. Courts uphold these provisions when they are clear, explicit, and entered voluntarily. (Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1309 (Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P); Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Powers).) Sometimes, however, attorneys are better served litigating a client's legal malpractice claim in a court of law, with its formality, wide-ranging discovery, and rights of appeal. Where arbitration is appropriate, attorneys must be careful to avoid waiver, by waiting too long after being sued to seek enforcement of an arbitration provision.

1. Arbitration Clauses are Enforceable in Legal Malpractice Cases

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that a written arbitration agreement is enforceable. Section 1281.2 provides, in pertinent part: "On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists . . . ."

Section 1281.2 applies in legal malpractice cases. (Powers, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1106-1107.) In Powers, an attorney included a mandatory arbitration provision in his initial and subsequent retainer agreements with a client. The attorney was sued for malpractice and petitioned the Trial Court to compel arbitration. The Trial Court denied the attorney's petition. The Court of Appeal reversed. It found that the arbitration provision in the initial retainer agreement did not attempt to limit the attorney's liability for legal malpractice, was not ethically improper and violated no conflict of interest rules. The arbitration provision in the later amendment merely confirmed the existing arbitration agreement. (Id. at pp. 1114–1115.) Subsequently, in Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1310, the court held that an attorney owes no duty to point out to his or her clients a clear and conspicuous provision compelling arbitration.

2. Should Attorneys Seek to Compel Arbitration of Legal Malpractice Disputes?

Attorneys may seek to compel arbitration for several reasons. An attorney may be concerned that a jury will sympathize with a likeable, injured plaintiff. An attorney may face certain liability and seek arbitration to try to contain damages, or to shield himself from embarrassment or from future claims from similarly situated potential plaintiffs, who may learn about an adverse judgment. Additionally, attorneys may select arbitration to ensure that a trained finder of fact will decide technical and complex legal and factual issues. Alternatively, an attorney, who is confident of his or her blamelessness, and who feels that extensive discovery is unnecessary, may compel arbitration in order to obtain a speedy resolution of the dispute. This may be easier said than done.

Although arbitration can be speedy, private, and informal, compelling arbitration is not without its downsides. Pleadings are less formal, and discovery may be limited. Thus, attorneys and their insurance carriers may be unable to properly analyze the full scope of liability or damages early in an arbitration proceeding. Demurrers and motions for summary judgment, which are effective tools to eliminate legal malpractice claims, are often unavailable. And, there is no right to appeal most arbitration awards, except under very unusual circumstances.

Additionally, many insurance policies provide the insurer the right to control the defense. Thus, before seeking arbitration, an attorney should know her insurer's position and obtain written consent. The attorney should evaluate the claim and make sure she understands what is being alleged, and her potential exposure. Finally, the attorney must be confident in her selection of a trustworthy arbitrator; she will not be able to appeal the arbitrator's decision, in all likelihood.

The Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P., decision demonstrates one risk of arbitration. The claimant waited until a defense award to challenge the arbitrator's impartiality. The Court of Appeal found an appearance of bias on a sketchy record merely because one of the partners in the defendant law firm had given a testimonial for the arbitrator many years earlier.

3. Avoiding Waiver When Arbitration is Preferred

Legal malpractice defendants may be tempted to avoid some of arbitration's downsides by ensuring that pleadings are settled and undertaking limited discovery prior to petitioning the court to compel arbitration. Attorneys may rely on California's "strong policy favoring arbitration agreements [which] requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims. . . ." (St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1195 (St. Agnes).) Waiver is not lightly inferred, and any doubts regarding waiver are resolved in favor of arbitration. (Ibid.)

The California Supreme Court has held that participating in litigation does not, in and of itself, result in waiver. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 377 (Iskanian).) Waiver is also not found just because a party caused the other side to incur expenses as part of litigation.

Waiting to file a petition to compel arbitration is risky, however, because California law provides no single test as to what will constitute waiver of an arbitration right. (St. Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 1195-1196.) Instead, courts are directed to a six-factor test in assessing a waiver claim:

(1) Whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate;

(2) Whether the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties are well into preparation of a lawsuit before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate;

(3) Whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay;

(4) Whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of proceedings;

(5) Whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place; and

(6) Whether the delay affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party

(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 375.)

Two recent cases, with similar facts, but different outcomes, highlight the risk involved in participating in litigation prior to seeking to compel arbitration. In Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651, 662 (Khalatian), the Trial Court found that a defendant waived contractual arbitration after it delayed petitioning to compel arbitration for 14 months. The Trial Court explained that the defendants actively participated in discovery and case management conferences and meetings with opposing counsel. "Only after exhausting all other means (Defendants' demurrer was overruled, Defendants' Motion to Strike was denied, Defendants were required to file an answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants filed said answer) and with an impending trial looming, did the Defendants seek arbitration." (Id. at p. 662.)

The Court of Appeal reversed and rejected the Trial Court's reading of the record. The Court of Appeal highlighted the defendants taking their demurrer and motion to strike off calendar and answering the second amended complaint. While the filing of a demurrer may lead to a determination on the merits, no determination was ever made because the defendants answered the second amended complaint. "Answering a complaint does not result in waiver." (Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 438, 449.) The Court of Appeal also rejected the Trial Court's claim that trial was looming. "The trial date was more than a year away when defendants filed their motion to compel." (Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 662.)

Further, to waive a right to compel arbitration, delay -- even a 14 month delay -- must be coupled with "evidence that defendants stretched out the litigation process, gained information about plaintiff's case they could not have learned in an arbitration, or waited until the eve of trial to move to compel arbitration." (Id. at pp. 662-663.) "Because plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice from defendants' delay in moving to compel arbitration, the court erred in finding waiver." (Ibid.)

Conversely, in Oregel v. PacPizza, LLC (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 342, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court's denial of a petition to compel arbitration. The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against his employer for the employer's alleged failure to fully reimburse delivery drivers for necessary expenses associated with using their personal vehicles to deliver pizza. (Id. at p. 345.) The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration 17 months after the complaint was filed -- citing the plaintiff's job application, which contained a clause requiring his lawsuit to be arbitrated. (Ibid.) Prior to filing its petition, the parties conducted class action discovery, and the plaintiff had prepared and filed its motion for class certification.

The Oregel Court explained that the defendant employer waived its right to arbitration because it had invoked the litigation machinery by propounding and responding to class based discovery, which would be irrelevant if the plaintiff was forced to arbitrate his claims. (Id. at p. 355-356.) It found that the defendant acted inconsistently with its intent to arbitrate, by failing to allege arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer and failing to raise arbitration at case management conferences. The plaintiff was allegedly prejudiced because he was deprived of the advantages of arbitration by the 17-month delay, which forced him to spend time and money filing a class certification motion and undertaking discovery, neither of which would not have been allowed in arbitration. (Ibid.)

Neither the Trial Court nor the Court of Appeal was convinced by the defendant's argument that its delay was justified, given the state of the law at the time it filed its answer. (Id. at p. 356.) The defendant argued that, prior to Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348, it was unclear whether arbitration provisions in job applications would be enforced. The court criticized the argument as an attempt to "rely on an erroneous interpretation of the law to justify its delay in seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement. (Id. at p. 358.)

In both Oregel and Khalatian, the court focused on the same six factors to determine whether extended delay created a waiver of a right to arbitration. In Oregel, the court seemed convinced that the delay was prejudicial because, among other things, the defendant engaged in discovery and law motion that would not have been available in arbitration. By contrast, in Khalatian, the court emphasized that all the discovery in which the defendant participated would have been equally available in arbitration.

The Oregel Court noted that a defendant can waive its right to arbitrate with a short delay as well. It cited various cases, wherein defendants had waived rights to arbitrate in only a few months because the defendants challenged the pleadings with demurrers and motions to strike or sought other merit based determinations. (Id. at p. 361.)

Thus, a defendant wishing to arbitrate a legal malpractice claim must be careful before engaging in discovery and law motion. It may be tempting to file a demurrer prior to seeking arbitration, when the grounds for demurrer could have been litigated in arbitration or do not affect the merits of a claim, i.e., the statute of limitations. In Zamora v. Lehman (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1, 17, the court held "[a]s a preliminary matter, the demurrer, which was based on the statute of limitations, did not affect Lehman's and Weiss's right to arbitrate because that issue could have been properly raised in arbitration." Similarly, in Groom v. Health Net (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1196–1197, the court held, "where complaint was vague, defendant did not waive arbitration by bringing demurrers that forced plaintiff to clarify legal theories and identify parties sued."

However, filing any motion that affects the merits is risky. Filing a demurrer initiates the litigation machinery and can be viewed as antithetical to a desire to arbitrate. If a demurrer is lost, a later motion to compel arbitration may be seen as forum shopping. In Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 450, the court explained "that litigating issues through demurrers may justify a waiver finding. The court was particularly skeptical of "engaging in multiple rounds of demurrers." (Ibid.)

Thus, a defendant desiring to arbitrate a legal malpractice action should promptly seek arbitration. The defendant must raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer, advise the court of its intent to arbitrate at case management conferences, and limit discovery and law motion to those arguments and devices that would be equally available in arbitration.

4. Should An Attorney Include A Mandatory Arbitration Provision in Her Retainer Agreement?

Since clear arbitration provisions which require arbitration of legal malpractice claims will routinely be enforced, attorneys may be tempted to include these provisions in their retainer agreements. An attorney should check with his malpractice carrier before doing so. Additionally, the attorney should weigh the risk of a client using the arbitration clause to force the attorney to arbitrate a legal malpractice claim, which could likely have been dismissed by demurrer or summary judgment. Although demurrers and summary judgments may theoretically be available in arbitrations, due to the general lack of appealability arbitrators may be particularly reluctant to grant such motions.

On the other hand, individual plaintiffs rarely are interested in arbitration, so they typically will not seek arbitration even if there is an arbitration provision in a retainer agreement, inclusion of such a provision, this may lead to a would-be plaintiff to have more realistic settlement expectations. Indeed, they may believe the cost of arbitration is more expensive than going forward via litigation, particularly due to the cost of an arbitrator's fees. (Sometimes retainer agreements call for three arbitrators.) This may lead to more realistic expectations from a plaintiff in terms of a settlement at the outset of the dispute.

5. Conclusion

There are virtues and vices associated to arbitrations in a legal malpractice claim. Attorneys should be conversant with the pros and cons of seeking arbitration.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions