In Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP v. Francisco (Frank) Lopez, the Texas supreme court reversed an interlocutory appeal from the Corpus Christi court of appeals, holding that the appellee failed to prove that an arbitration provision in an attorney-client employment contract was substantively unconscionable nor did the plaintiff prove any other defense to the arbitration provision.

The appellee had hired appellant to represent him in his divorce case. The attorney-client contract contained an arbitration provision which provided that any dispute arising out of or connected with the agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The provision, however, excepted from arbitration any claims made by the firm for the recovery of its fees and expenses.

After the appellee and his wife reached a settlement, the appellee brought suit against appellant claiming the firm persuaded him to accept an inadequate settlement. The appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the contract. The trial court denied the motion and the appellants filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision concluding that the appellee’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement but that the appellee had proven one of his affirmative defenses by proving that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable.

Read original article


Tags: