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.