Menu

Showing 4 posts from June 2016.

Practioners -- Time to Update Your Client Arbitration Agreements, Part II

Many attorneys have been using the same engagement agreements for decades designating standard commercial providers such as the American Arbitration Association to resolve client disputes.  In recent years some have learned the hard way that their agreements do not comply with consumer protection rules that have developed in recent years.  The failure to incorporate new standards into fee agreements means not only that non-conforming provisions will be deemed unenforceable.  In some cases attorneys will find that their arbitration agreements are wholly unenforceable.

Ed. Note: The remainder of the post is the continuation of Ed Donohue's discussion of arbitration agreements between clients and lawyers, posted originally on June 20, 2016. We'll pick it up where we left off, in mid-outline... More ›

Supreme Court Rules that Pennsylvania Justice's Previous Involvement in Case Represented an Impermissible Risk of Bias

In a recent opinion, Williams v. Pennsylvania, --- S.Ct. ----,  2016 WL 3189529 (June 9, 2016), a divided United States Supreme Court held that judges must recuse themselves in cases in which they previously played a significant role in prosecuting the person appearing before them.  More ›

Time to Update Your Client Arbitration Agreements (Pt. 1)

Many attorneys have been using the same engagement agreements for decades designating standard commercial providers such as the American Arbitration Association to resolve client disputes.  In recent years some have learned the hard way that their agreements do not comply with consumer protection rules that have developed in recent years.  The failure to incorporate new standards into fee agreements means not only that non-conforming provisions will be deemed unenforceable.  In some cases attorneys will find that their arbitration agreements are wholly unenforceable. More ›

What Century Are We Living In? – The Second Circuit Seems To Think It's the Nineteenth

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that members of the New York bar residing out-of-state can be constitutionally required to have a physical office within the state, reversing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York's decision finding otherwise. Given the realities of law practice in 2016, how does this make sense? More ›