The Georgia Supreme Court declined to declare a mandatory arbitration clause for legal malpractice claims in a lawyer’s engagement agreement “unconscionable” or void, despite the client’s argument that it was never apprised of possible disadvantages arbitration could pose.

Tuesday’s unanimous opinion leaves in place a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a trial judge who found the clause violated Georgia’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Even if attorney Darren Summerville had failed to discuss the pros and cons of the clause with his client, its inclusion was not void, because the former client “does not argue and no court has held that such an arbitration clause may never lawfully be included in an attorney-client contract, the court ruled.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]