FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1547282909> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1547282909 startingPage "409" @default.
• W1547282909 abstract "Well-drafted clauses and full disclosure clients should overcome ethical and other objections that might be made arbitrating malpractice ARBITRATION has become an accepted method of resolving disputes between many types of professionals and their clients. Physicians, real estate brokers, and other professionals frequently require arbitration agreements or include clauses requiring arbitration of disputes in their agreements with their clients or patients. In the lawyer-client setting, however, arbitration of disputes, other than those over fees, is less common. This is, in part, because clauses requiring arbitration rarely, until recently, have been included in retainer agreements. However, by avoiding litigation expenses and the uncertainty of a jury trial, arbitration may effectively reduce the costs of malpractice for some lawyers. This article addresses the enforceability of arbitration clauses in retainer agreements for attorney-client disputes, other than fee disputes.' WHY ARBITRATE? Arbitration is a less expensive and more private means of resolving legal malpractice claims. Streamlined procedural and evidentiary rules apply. Although many features of arbitration are attractive defendants, the California Supreme Court has rejected the assertion that arbitration favors defendants' interests. In Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,2 the court stated that the speed and economy of arbitration, in contrast the expense and delay of jury trial, could prove helpful all parties; the simplified procedures and relaxed rules of evidence in arbitration may aid an injured plaintiff presenting his case. Although arbitration does not restrict the amount or theories of liability under which a client might seek recover, it does require that the potential plaintiff forgo certain significant rights, foremost being the right a jury trial and broad discovery. However, flexibility is a significant advantage of using alternative dispute resolution procedures. For example, mediation, binding arbitration, non-binding arbitration, or arbitration binding on the attorney only may be used. It also is possible for the procedures and rules governing discovery or the admission of evidence be structured in a manner consistent with the parties' goals. ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN RETAINER AGREEMENTS In California, legislative endorsement of written arbitration agreements is embodied in Section 1281 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: A written submit arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. The likelihood that attorney-client disputes will be submitted an alternative procedure is increased if the parties agree in advance use such procedures in the event a dispute arises. Clauses compelling arbitration of malpractice claims therefore are more frequently included in retainer agreements. Moreover, advance agreements arbitrate can specify in detail the organization that will conduct the arbitration, whether the arbitrators' decision will be binding on one or more parties, whether mediation will precede the arbitration, and any limitations on discovery or presentation of evidence. ETHICAL CONCERNS Ethical concerns have stalled widespread use by lawyers of arbitration agreements governing malpractice disputes. While no express ethical prohibitions preclude use of arbitration clauses in retainer agreements, Rule 1.8(h) of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct forbids the use of an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability a client for malpractice unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented in making the agreement. Even so, a New York federal district court held that DR 6-102(a) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribed a lawyer's attempting to exonerate himself from or limit his liability his clients for his personal malpractice, did not prohibit use of an arbitration governing legal malpractice claims. …" @default.
• W1547282909 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1547282909 creator A5035110585 @default.
• W1547282909 creator A5055677735 @default.
• W1547282909 date "1997-07-01" @default.
• W1547282909 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1547282909 title "A New Way to Go: Arbitration of Legal Malpractice Claims" @default.
• W1547282909 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W1547282909 type Work @default.
• W1547282909 sameAs 1547282909 @default.
• W1547282909 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1547282909 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1547282909 hasAuthorship W1547282909A5035110585 @default.
• W1547282909 hasAuthorship W1547282909A5055677735 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C160786031 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2776607877 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2777366047 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C40422974 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C144133560 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C160151201 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C160786031 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C162324750 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C17744445 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C190253527 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C199360897 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C199539241 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2776119841 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2776607877 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2776798817 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2777366047 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2777834853 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C2778272461 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C40422974 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C41008148 @default.
• W1547282909 hasConceptScore W1547282909C97460637 @default.
• W1547282909 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1547282909 hasLocation W15472829091 @default.
• W1547282909 hasOpenAccess W1547282909 @default.
• W1547282909 hasPrimaryLocation W15472829091 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W1497948688 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W1563088147 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W2211141499 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W2256733537 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W2268078063 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W2274272982 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W2344943927 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W273271654 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W278277423 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W285003375 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W288342271 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W292629942 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W3125097976 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W3126103775 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W3151069092 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W3194511328 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W324139499 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W37082090 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W139085791 @default.
• W1547282909 hasRelatedWork W218173967 @default.
• W1547282909 hasVolume "64" @default.
• W1547282909 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1547282909 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1547282909 magId "1547282909" @default.
• W1547282909 workType "article" @default.