A recent law.com story, “Calif. Appeals Court Says Fee Arbitrator Should Have Disclosed Clientele” reports that the California Court of Appeals for the First District ruled in favor of a former client, holding that the lawyer who acted as chief fee arbitrator should have disclosed that he regularly represents law firms in fee disputes.  In the published opinion (pdf), Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Nancy Hurwitz Kors, the court concluded that the chief fee arbitrator, Sean SeLegue’s legal practice might have led the former client, who hired Benjamin, Weill & Mazer, to fend off a lawsuit over a failed adoption she brokered to “reasonably entertain a doubt” that he would be able to arbitrate the fee dispute impartially.  Because arbitration is a commercial enterprise, the court reasoned, the chief arbitrator’s financial interests – in this case, his thriving practice representing law firms in fee disputes against clients – do matter. 

In the underlying case, former client Nancy Hurwitz Kors, complained that her lawyers’ aggressive strategy was costing her more than see was able to pay.  A fee dispute ensued that lead to arbitration.  The arbitration panel concluded that the fee award was reasonable and directed Kors to pay about $100,000 in unpaid attorney fees and interest on top of the more than $227,000 she’d already paid.  In asking the court to vacate the fee award, Kors argued that SeLegue should have disclosed how frequently he works on fee disputes on behalf of law firms.