FINDING A SAFE HARBOR for Arbitration Clauses in Attorney-Client Engagement Agreements.

This article explores the ongoing debate among lawyers regarding the use of arbitration as a method for resolving disputes between lawyers and clients. Supporters of arbitration argue that it is a faster, more cost-effective, and confidential alternative to litigation. However, critics point out that arbitration may not always be the quickest or most economical option and lacks appellate review. The article provides guidance to lawyers who wish to include arbitration clauses in their engagement agreements and enforce them against resistant clients. It also discusses the varying requirements for binding arbitration clauses and the additional obligations imposed by state ethics committees. The article examines the views of courts and ethics committees on arbitration of fee disputes, legal malpractice claims, and ethical complaints. It concludes by outlining six key considerations that lawyers must address to ensure the enforceability of their arbitration agreements. The article emphasizes the importance of providing clients with sufficient information to make informed decisions about arbitration and ensuring that the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable. It also highlights the need for clear and straightforward language in arbitration clauses and the potential for clients to argue waiver of arbitration based on litigation conduct or unnecessary delay. [Extracted from the article]