case brief Lawrence v.s waltzer

case brief Lawrence v.s waltzer - Holding: No. The retainer...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Belen Cardenas Andrew Ault Brief case 9 4/1/2009 Lawrence v. Walter 256 Cal. Rptr. 6 (1989) Facts: The plaintiff Lawrence chose the law firm of Walzer and Gabrielson to represent him in the dissolution of his marriage. He ended up suing the law firm for malpractice. The defendants claimed that she signed a retainer agreement that contained a provision requiring binding arbitration in the case of a dispute regarding, costs, fees, or any other aspect of the attorney client relationship. The plaintiff argued that the agreement did not state that there had to be binding arbitration in cases of malpractice. Issue: Whether or not the agreement signed by Lawrence, which states that there must be an arbitrator in case of a dispute, covers malpractice
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Holding: No. The retainer agreement that the plaintiff signed does not cover legal malpractice Rationale: If the phrase any other aspect of our attorney-client relationship stood alone then the defendants argument would have been compelling. However, it doesnt stand alone. It goes along with the other clauses. The law should not forfeit a valuable right to waiver a jury trial. When the client is not aware of the existent arbitration or it implications, the client is said to have real choice in selecting arbitration if he/she is notified or explained to only. The defendant simply got a signature not an agreement. Result: Affirmed...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online