Per Curiam
Defendants appealed from an order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff law firm sued to recover legal fees for services rendered to defendants. The firm alleged Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Court governing fee dispute resolution programs was inapplicable. It argued the action fell within one of the exceptions to the fee dispute programclaims involving substantial legal questions, including professional malpractice. Defendants sought dismissal alleging they fired plaintiff for cause and malpractice, noting their retainer agreement did not contain a provision advising them of their right to arbitrate fee disputes. Yet, plaintiff claimed the termination letter noted defendants discharged the firm with cause for acts relating to legal malpractice, hence their claim involved substantial legal questions, and Part 137 was inapplicable. The court agreed, and the panel affirmed finding, as did the Civil Court, that the issue of defendants’ termination of plaintiff was based on the firm’s alleged malpractice which was inextricably intertwined with the issue of the reasonableness of legal fees the firm sought. As defendants’ malpractice claim could not be considered in fee dispute arbitration, it was a threshold issue to be determined in litigation.
