Arbitration & Mediation

Lawyer Sued for Malpractice-type Theories Can't Invoke the Arbitration Clause He Wrote

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

The Fourth DCA denied arbitration in a case because the parties to the suit had not agreed to arbitrate. This was not, however, the typical scenarios such as questioning the breadth of the agreement nor whether the parties were signatories.

In David Hart, P.A. v. Chloe Zemmour and Maurice Djedou, Hart was an immigration lawyer hired by Zemmour and Djedou to help them get an investor visa. To satisfy the "investment" requirement, Hart prepared a stock purchase agreement for his clients to purchase 50% of a pizza restaurant owned by a person who referred Hart to his clients. The pizza place was allegedly worthless and the client sued "essentially for malpractice" theories.

The stock agreement had contained an arbitration clause which included the typically sufficiently-broad arbitration language, "arising from or relating to." Hart wrote the contract and the clause as the attorney but was not a party to that contract.

The Fourth DCA, not surprisingly, held that Hart could not invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement. There was not a lengthy discussion of third party beneficiaries or whether Hart was a signatory; instead, the court simply held that the claims were not subject to the wording of the stock purchase agreement. Indeed, the claims allegedly arose before the contract existed and arose from the attorney-client relationship.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on January 11, 2008 (boomark / email).