### NUM BER 13-06- 469- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G ROBERT S. BENNETT, I NDIVI DUA LLY A ND T HE BEN NET T LA W FIR M , P.C ., A pp ellan ts,

v . ST EPH EN T. LE AS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 4 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d V el a

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z In thi s int er loc utor

y appeal , appel lan ts, Rob ert S. Bennett, ind iv idu all y , and the Be n n e t tL a w

Fir m, P.C. (collectiv ely, “Benn ett”), cha llenge the trial court’s denia l of their
re q uestto com p e l a rb itra ti on i n thi s l eg al malpract ic e ac ti on fil ed ag ain st Bennett byT he T exas Ar bi t r at i on Act (T AA ) expr essl y gr ant s i nt er l ocut or y j ur i sdi ct i on o v er den i al s of 1 a p p l i c a ti o n s to c o m p e l a rb i tra ti o n
. T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7 1 .0 9 8 (a )( 1 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); s e e In re D . W i ls o n C o n s tr. C o ., 196 S. W

. 3d 7 74, 778
- 79 ( T ex. 200 6) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng)
. A p p e lle e a s s e r ts th a t “ it i s undi sput ed t hat onl y t he T exas Ar bi t r at i on Act i s appl i cabl e. ” Appel l ant s do not di sput e t hi s asser t i on. T he arb i t rat i on pa rag rap h p rovi de s for arbi t rat i on “adm i ni s t ere d b y t he A m eri c an A rbi t rat i on A s s o c i a ti on (AA A )” “in a c c o rd a n c e w i th th e l a w s o f th e S ta te o f T e x a s .”

T he m at t er s r ef er enced i n t he Rodr i guez “ At t or ney R et ai nerA gre em en t ” ar e “ St at e Bar of Texas 2 G riev an c e M att ers ; A p p e a l a n d M o ti o n to R e c o n s i d e r – S 2 0 8 0 1 0 3 3 2 9 ; M ar ia E. R odr

i guez– St ephen T. Lea s a n d B O D A C a s e N o . 2 6 6 1 8 ; St ephen T. Lea s v. C om m ission f or Lawyer D isci pline
. ” Al t hough t he r ecor d con t ai ns l et t er s of r epr esent at i on a nd “ At t or ney R et ai nerAgr eem ent s” bet ween 3 B e n n e tt a n d L e a s re g a rd i n g th e s e m a tte rs , t h e a g re e m e n ts a re n o t s i g n e d b y L e a s
. 2 appel lee , St ephen T. Leas. By fiv e i ss ues, appel lan ts cont end t he tr ial co urt er re d i n ( 1) 1 deter mini ng thatso me of the matters soug ht to be arb it ra ted fel l outs ide the sc ope of the
ar bit ra ti on ag re ement; (2 ) appl y ing the “p ersonal inj ur y ” ex cept ion to ar bit ra ti on; ( 3) findi ng tha t Ben net t w aived the arb it ra t io n provision; and (4) find ing the arbitratio n clause
un en forc ea bl e as a g ai ns t pu bl i cp ol i c y . W e affi r m. Back ground Leas, an a ttor ney , ask e d B e n nett to representhi m in co nnect ion w it h s ev eral pendi ng g ri ev ance matters i nv olv ing M ar ia H. Rod ri g uez
. Leas and Bennett ent ered i nto 2 an “ Atto rn ey

R etai ner Ag re ement” reg ardin g the represent ati on; the ag re ement c ontai ned
an ar bit ra ti on c lau se. A feww eeks l ater , Leas aske d Benn ett to representhi m in se v eral oth er gr ievances f iled against Le as by Glori a Ruel Herrera, Daniel Alv arez, an d Cand elaria Reyes. 3 Bennett c ontends thatLeas faile d to ti mely pay his inv oic es for l eg al ser v ic es, and in Dec ember

2003, Benne tt soug ht t o i nit iat e ar bit ra ti on. In Ma rc h 2004, Leas su ed Bennett, re q uest ing a de cl aratory ju d g ment t hat B ennettw as not e nti tl ed to ar bit ra ti on. Bennett fil ed a ple a i n abat ement, re q uest ing abatement of Leas’ peti ti on and enforc ementSee R obert S. Bennet t, I ndi vi dual l y, et al

. v. St ephen T. Lea s , N o. 13- 04- 362- C V, ( T ex. App. –C or pus 4 C h ris ti M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (m e m o o p .)(n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 3 of the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. Fol low ing a he ar ing , the tr ial cour t si g ned an order

abat ing both Leas ’ lawsui t and Bennett’ s req uestfor a rb it ra ti on unt il the under ly ing g ri ev ance matters w ere c omp leted. Bennett attempted to ap peal the tr ial court ’s order ; this Cour t di smi ss ed th e appea l for w ant of jurisdiction. Benn ett f iled a pe tition for rev iew wi t h t h e su prem e cou rt, but sh ortly

4 thereafter, Leas adv is ed th e tr ial co urt t hat t he unde rl y ing matte rs h a d been compl eted. The tr ial co urt retur ned t he c ase to i ts dock et. On A pr il 18, 2006, Bennett ag ain requ est ed th at t he tr ial co urt order ar bit ra ti on. Follow ing a he aring, th e trial co urt den ied Ben net t’s reque st for a rbitration

. Th e trial court issued f indings of

fa c ta n d c o n c lu sions of law on Se pte mb er 19, 2 006 . Th e trial court’s f in d in gs a n d co n clu sio n s in clu d e d th e fo llo wing: 1. The Pl ain ti ff

[Lea s] has all eg ed c auses of act ion al leg ing l eg al ma lpractice, breach of

f iduciary duty, f ra u d a nd b reach of contractagainst Defend ant[Ben net t] con cerning four (4) se para te and indep end entcases in w hic h D efendant represent ed Pl ain ti ff

. Theyare k now n as “Ro d ri g uez ,” “H er re ra ,” “ Al v arez ,” and “R ey es. ” 2. There is no w ri tten ag re ement si g ned by the par ti es that in volve any issues relatin g to th e “Herrera,” “Alv arez,” and “Rey es” ma tters. 3. The De fendant, i n a h ear ing before thi s C our t on June 10, 2 004, had sti pul ated to t his Co u rtthatthe “R odr ig uez ” cont ra ct onl y co ncer ned t he “Rodriguez ” matt er and no oth er ma tter. 4. There is a w ri tten cont ra ct betw een t he par ti es conc er nin g onl y

the “R odr ig uez ” matter

thatdoes cont ain an ar bit ra ti on cl ause under the Tex as Arbitratio n Act (T AA). 5. One o f the c auses of act ion al leg ed by th e Pl ain ti ff

co ncer nin g the “R o d ri gu e z” m a t t e r i s fo r a p e rs o n a l i n ju ry.TM I , I nc. v. Brooks , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d 7 8 3 , 7 9 1 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 5 4 . . . . 7. The cont ra ct w as not s ig ned by ei ther par ty ’s att or ney

of re cord. 8. The Pl ain ti ff

w as not a dvise d i n writing by the Defendantto cons ultan attor ney pr ior to si g nin g the ag re ement. 9. The Pl ain ti ff

w as not i ndependen tl y

represent ed w hen t he ag re ement w as ma de b etween th e pa rties. 10. The ar bit ra ti on c lau se in the ‘ Rod ri g uez’ matter att empts to l imi t t he li abi li ty of the D efendant for malpract ic e.

. . . . 19. The Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedy [si c] Cod e § 1 71.001, st ates that , for an ar bit ra ti on ag re ement to be enforceabl e, t hat t here mustex is t a w ri tten ag re ement t o ar bit ra te be tw een t he par ti es. Theref o re , there be ing no w ri tten cont ra ct w it h an ar bit ra ti on ag re ement t hat e x is t[s ] betwee n the par ti es conc er nin g the “H er re ra ,” “ Al v arez ,” and “R eyes” matte rs , t he Defendanti s n ot en ti tl ed to co mpel ar bit ra ti on on thos e matt ers. 20. The ar bit ra ti on claus e i n the “ Rod ri g uez ” matter i s i n v iol ati on of the T exas Rules o f

P rofession al Cond uct, Rule 1.08 (g ), and a s such is against publ icpol icy

and is therefore un enforc eabl e. 2 1

. T h e De fe n d a n th a s wa ive d a n y ri gh tt o a r b i t r a t e in t h e “R o d ri gu e z” ma t t e r , b y

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

i n v o k i n g t h e j u d i c i a l p ro c e s s re s u l t i n g i n t h e P l a i n t i ff sufferin g ac tual preju dic e.

St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W hen rev iew ing by

i nter loc utor

y appeal an o rd er

deny ing ar bit ra ti on unde r the TAA,
w e appl y

a de nov o s tandard to leg al deter minat ion s a nd a “n o e vide n ce” st andard to factual dete rmi nati ons. U nder the “n o ev id e n ce ” st a ndard, w e v iew the ev ide nce in the 5 li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the chal len g ed findi ng and ind ulg e ev er y re asona ble i nferenc e tha tId

. ( ci t i ng C i t y of Kell er v. W i lson , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ))

. 6
Id

. 7
D avey v. Shaw , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 9 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.). 8
Id

. 9 Brooks , 225 S. W

. 3d a t 791 ; C appad onna E l e c . M g m t. v . C a m e ro n C o u n ty , 180 S. W

. 3d 3 64, 370 10 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 5, or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( ci t i ng I n r e O akw ood M obi

l e Hom es, I nc
. , 987 S. W

. 2d 5 71, 5 7 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ) (o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ); I n re C & H N ew s C o. , 133 S. W

. 3d 6 4 2 , 6 4 5 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2003, or i g. p ro c e e d i n g ))

.

M cR eynolds v. Elst on , 2 2 2 S .W .3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 9 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.). 11
Id

. 12 5 w ould supp ort it. W e mu st credit favorable ev iden ce and disregard contrary evidence o nly 6 if a reason able factf inde r could do so. A leg al suf f iciency challen ge to the f indings of fact 7
w ill not be sustaine d if the re is mo re tha n a scintilla of evidence to supp ort t h e f indings. 8 In c o n d u c t in g a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , app ellate courts ma y set aside a trial court’s f inding only i f

it is so cont rary to the overw helm ing w eight of the evidence as to be clearly
w ro ng or unj ust

. 9 Und er the TAA, a par

ty se eki ng to compel ar bit ra ti o n m u st (1) es tabl is h the
ex i s te nc e of a v al i d, e nfo r c ea bl e ar bi trat i on a gr eem ent a nd ( 2) s ho w t ha t th e c l ai ms ass erted fal l w it hin the sc ope of thatag re ement. I f the mov ant e sta bli shes thatan 10
ar bit ra ti on ag re ement g ov er ns the d is pute, the burden t hen sh ifts to t he par ty oppos ing
ar bit ra ti on to es tabl is h a d efense to the ar bit ra ti on agreement. If the tr ial co urt c oncl udes 11 the mov ant h as met i ts burden and the party oppos ing ar bit ra ti on has fail ed to prov e i ts defenses, the tr ial co urt has no d is creti on butto compel ar bit ra ti on. 12 Al thoug h c our

ts g e n e rall y

enforc e ar bit ra ti on ag re ements , a cour t may not orderC appad onna , 180 S. W

. 3d a t 370 ( ci t i ng Fre is v. C anales , 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ))

. 13
Id

. ( ci t i ng M oh am ed v . A uto N ation U S A C orp ., 8 9 S .W .3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 5 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 14 20 02 , no pe t

. , co m bi ne d a pp ea l & ori g. pro c ee di ng ))

.

Id

. ( ci t i ng Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Ti pps , 8 4 2 S .W .2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ) (o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ))

. 15
I n r e Bunz l U

. S. A. , I nc. , 1 5 5 S .W .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 9 (T e x . A p p .– E l P a s o 2 0 0 4 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ). 16
Id

. 17
D . W ils o n C o n s tr. C o ., 1 9 6 S .W .3 d a t 7 8 1 ; M cR eynolds , 2 2 2 S .W .3 d a t 7 3 9 ; C appad onna , 180 18 S .W .3 d a t 3 7 0

.

M cR eynolds , 222 S. W

. 3d a t 740

. 19
Id

. 20 6 ar bit ra ti on i n the abs ence of such an a g re ement. The pa rt ies ’ ag re ement to ar bit ra te 13 must be c lea r. If one par ty deni es that there i s a bi ndi ng ar bit ra ti on ag re ement, the t ri al 14
cour t may summar il y deci de w hether to compel ar bit ra ti on on the b asi s o f uncontrov erted aff ida v it s, ple adi ng s, dis cov er y , and sti pul ati ons. W hen a re v iew ing cour t is ca ll ed upon 15 to de cid e w h e th e r th e pa rt ie s h a ve a gre e d to arb it ra te , itdo e s n o t re so lve d o u b ts or in d u lge a presumpt ion i n fav or

of a rb it rati on. I nst ead, itappl ies st andard c ontractpr inc ipl es to 16 det ermin e w het her a valid arbitration a greem entex ists. W het her the re is an e nforcea ble 17 ag re ement t o ar bit ra te i s a q uest ion of law and is therefore rev iew ed de nov o. 18 Det er mini ng w h e th e r a clai m fall s w it hin the sc ope of an a rb it ra ti on ag re ement invol ve s t h e trial court’s legal interpreta tion o f the agreem ent , and w e revi ew such int er pretati ons de nov o. The burde n lie s w it h the party oppos ing ar bit ra ti on to sh ow that 19 the c lai ms fall outs ide the sc ope of the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. 20 W e w ill not f in d e rr o r b y t h e t ri a l court and are required to up hold the trial court’sG r a n dH o m e s 9 6 , L .P . v . L o u d e r m ilk , 208 S. W

. 3d 6 96, 702 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 20 06, pet

. f i l ed) 21 ( ci t i ng O w ens- C or

ning Fiber

glas Cor

p. v. Mal one , 9 7 2 S .W .2 d 3 5 , 4 3 , 4 1 ( T e x . 1 9 9 8 ) ( r e q u ir in g u s to u p h o ld tri a l c o u rt's e v i d e n ti a ry ru l i n g i f i t i s p ro p e r o n a n y g r o u n d s ); H ar w el l v. St at e Far

m Mut

. Aut o. I ns. C o. , 896 S .W .2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ) (h o l d i n g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t m u s t b e u p h e l d i f i t i s p ro p e r o n a n y g ro u n d s ))

.

I n t hei r br i ef , appel l ant s r ef er t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs o ff act and concl usi ons o fl aw i ssued on 22 A ug u s t 2 , 2 00 6 a nd on S ep t em be r 18, 20 06

. T he co urt ’ s A ug us t 2, 20 06 fi nd i ng s an d c on c l us i on s are i ncl uded i n i t s Sept em ber18, 200 6 f i ndi ngs. T her ef or e, f or ease ofr ef er ence, we r ef er t o t he Sept em ber 18, 2 0 0 6 fi n d i n g s
. 7 ruling i f it is prop er on an y

g roun ds. 21 A nal ysis B y t h e ir f ir s tis s u e , a p p e ll a n t s co n t e n d t h e t ri a l c o u rte rr e d in f in d in g t h a tt h e A lva re z, Her re ra , and R ey es matters a re not w it hin the sc o p e o f the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. Ap p e lla n ts co n te n d th a t t h e “tri a l co u rt ’s f irs t, se co n d , fo u rt h , a n d ni n e te e n th f in d in gs a n d /o r co n clu sio n s . . . a re in co rre ct a n d sh o u ld be di sre gar d e d .” Ap p e lla n ts ch a lle n ge 22 the l eg al an d fac tu al s uffi c i en c y of th e ev i de nc e s up po rti ng th e tr i al c ou rt’s third findi ng —th at B ennettst ipu lat ed to the cour t t hat t he R odr ig uezco ntract c o n ce rn ed th e Rod ri g uezmatte r onl y . App ellant s argue thataltho ugh the a rbitration a greem entin t he Rodriguez cont ract doe s not m ent ion th e Alvarez , Herrera, and Re y es ma tters, tho se ma tters are no net hele ss covered by the arbitration clause “be cause they w ere w ithin th e att orne y -client relation ship of Benn ett a nd L eas. ” Accordin g to ap pellan ts, the trial cou rt erred in failing to g iv e f ull effectto the p ro v is ion st ati ng thatar bit ra ti on w as appl ic abl e to any “cont ro v ersy , cla im, or dis pute in the c ourse and s cope of t h e Attor ney -C li ent rela ti onshi p or ar is ing out of or
re lat ing to thi s A g re ement .

. . . ”T he r epor t er ’ s r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t he hear i ng occur r ed on June 9, 2004. T he h ear i ng a ddr essed 23 appel l ee’ s pl ea t o ab at e appel l ant s’ sui t fo r col l ect i on ofat t or ney s’ fe es pendi ng di sposi t i on oft he u nder l y i ng m at t er s. T he h ear i ng a l so ad dr essed appel l ant s’ m ot i on t o t r ansf er v enue ( ofapp el l ee’ s m al pr act i ce sui t ) and m o ti o n to a b a te (s a m e ) b a s e d o n th e a rb i tra ti o n a g re e m e n t.

W e no t e t hat app el l ant s have s pe ci f i cal l y chal l enged t he l egal and f act ual suff i ci ency of t he 24 ev i dence suppor t i ng o n ly th e tr ia l c o u r t’s th ir d f in d in g
. W ith r e g a r d to th e r e m a in in g f in d in g s , a p p e lla n ts s im p ly ar gue, wi t hout r ef er ence t o any l egal or f act ual suff i ci ency st andar d, t hat t hi s C our t “ shoul d di sr egar d” t he t r i al c ou rt ’ s fi nd i ng s an d c on c l us i on s
. Ap pe l l ee do es no t ra i s e a ny ch al l en ge as t o w he t he r app el l an t s ha ve a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d th e i r i s s u e s , a n d w e d o n o t a d d re s s th e i s s u e
. 8 As to t he c our

t’ s t hird findi ng thatBenne tt sti pul ated at a June 10, 2 004 hea ri ng 23 that the R odr ig uezco ntractco ncer ns onl y the Rod ri g uezmatte r, appell ants asser t that t he f inding is “ simp ly

not true .” According to app ellant s, Ben net t stipula ted t hat“the con tract in q uest ion menti ons onl y the Rod ri g uezm a tter a nd no other matte rs ,” but made no sti pul ati on reg ardin g w hether the ar bit ra ti on c lau se w as broad eno ug h to encompas s t he add itiona l matt ers. W e beg in w it h appel lan ts’ ch all eng e to the l eg al and factu al suffici e n cy of the
ev ide nce suppo rt ing the cour t’ s thi rd findi ng thatBenne tt sti pul ated at t he J une 10, 2004 h e a rin g th a t t h e Ro d rigu e z con tr a ctco n ce rn s o n ly th e Ro d rigu e z ma tt e r. Atth e he a rin g, 24
a p p e ll e e a n d Ro b e rtB e n n e t tp ro vid e d a rg u m e n ta n d t e s t im o n y: [Robe rt Benn ett] : . . . T o go b ack to testif y n ow abo ut the se, all t he ca ses, by swor n ans w er , M r. Leas agrees that I was hired to representhi m on t he Rod ri g uezca se. The R odr ig u e z ca se w as w here the re w as a s ig ned cont ra ct. Then, as w e w ent a lon g i n our rela ti onshi p, I w a s a ls o, be si des the Rod ri g uezca se, as ked to repre se n t h im —I” ll tr y to g et t hese— all four matters s traig ht— Her re ra , Al v arez -R ey es— I’ m sor ry
. Her re ra i s t he s econd

. Al v arez , s las h, R ey es (A lv arez/R ey es) is the third, an d C uel lar i s t he fourt h. And M r. Leas tes ti fies that he as ked me to re presenthi m besi des the Rod ri g uezmatte r in the other three. He s tates thathe n ev er obj ect ed to the w ay thatthos e fou r m a tt e rs w ere bi ll ed. He nev er obj ect ed to them bei ng bil led under

one inv oic e number

pr ior to the l aw sui t he filed

. He tes ti fies thatT he r ecor d sho ws t hat t he “ t hi s” r ef er r ed t o i s a re qu est f or adm i ssi on f r om app el l ant s t o Le as, 25 st at i ng: Adm i t t hat t he l ast sent ence oft he se cond par agr aph pfPar t V I I I oft he cont r act st at es, ‘ O ur

d is p u te s h a l l b e d e te rm i n e d b y a rb i tra ti o n i n H o u s to n , T e x a s , b e fo re a s o l o a rb i tra to r, in accor dance wi t h t he l aws oft he St at e of T exas f or agr eem ent s m ade i n an d t o be per f or m ed i n T e x a s .’ 9 he nev er obje ct e d t o al l matters b ein g bi ll ed to g ether

. He nev er made a w ri tten re quest at any

ti me thatthes e matt ers b e s eparated out. H e nev er re q uest ed s eparate i nv oic es. H e nev er separated out his pay ments, or the p a ym e n t s t h a th e se n twe re fo r a ll t h e wo rk s [ s ic ] p ro vid e d

. An d , a s o f t o d a y, he has prov ide d no document ati on to me o r to t h e C our t i n any w ay cont ra dicti ng our

M oti on to Tran sfer Venue.

. . . . [L e a s ]: Your Honor, on ce again, th e ba sis of my obje ction was that he ’s [R ober t Be nnett ] attempti ng to make [ the R odr ig uezco ntract ] t he bas is of the ag re ement on sev eral different cont ra cts , w hic h s impl y ca nnot be done

. I deni ed th at at—i n N o. 3, R eq uestfor A dmis si ons there, I d e n ied thatthey w ere the same terms, the ora l contracts, as the wr itten contract s. Now , if, one, itbe s ti pul ated that thi s i s as to the R odr ig uezmatte r 25 and th e R odr ig uezmatte r onl y , t hat’ s w hat t he c ontractsa y s. Butto the other matte rs , no, si r, they ’re not

. [ Co u rt ] : O n ly— a s t o Ro d ri gu e z o n ly? [Leas ]: Ri g ht. [C our t]: N ot t he ot her

peopl e? [Leas ]: Ri g ht. [C our t]: R ey es, C uel lar , and

. . . [Le as]: Yes, Your Honor. Th ere is no w ritten con tract on those issues. [C our t]: Ok ay
. Mr . Be nnett ? [Robe rt Benn ett] : Your Honor, I accep t tha t. I ’d like t o go th rough and make sure tha t t he ot her

req uest s are al so eit her ag re ed or

the Cou rttak es jud ic ial noti ce.See Shaw , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 9

. 26
S e e id

. 27 10 W e c on c l ud e th atapp el l an ts ’ arg um en t be fore th e tr i al co ur t i s e s s en ti al l y

t he s am e as thei r arg ument on appeal : that the Rodr ig uezco ntracti s t he onl y “ si g ned c ontract ,” but the arbitration agreeme nt sho uld be construe d as ap pli c a b le t o the ad dition al ma tters becau se appel lee “ nev er obj ect ed” to the matters bei ng treated col lecti v ely for bil li ng and pay ment pur poses
. W e al so conc lud e that the thi rd findi ng —th at appel lan ts sti pul ated that the Rodriguezc o n t ract only “ conce rned ” the Rodriguez ma tter—d oes n ot ne cessarily preclud e ap pellan ts’ argumen t tha t altho ugh the arb it ration agreeme nt spe cif ically per tai ned or “ conc er ned” onl y

the Rod ri g uezmatte r, i t s houl d nonet hel ess be i nter preted to en com pass th e ad dition al ma tters. Aft e r re vie w ing the record, we conclude there is
more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce to suppo rtthe tr ial co urt’ s t hird findi ng
. W e al so canno t 26 say thatthe thi rd findi ng i s s o c ontrar y to the o v er

w hel ming w eig ht of the ev ide nce as to be c lea rl y

w ro ng or

unj ust

. 27 W e now tur n to appel lan ts’ arg ument t h at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n findi ng thatthe Al v arez , H er re ra , and R ey es matters a re not w it hin the sc ope of the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. Appel lan ts a rgu e thatbec ause the a ddi ti onal matte rs are w it hin thei r attor ney -c li ent
re lat ion shi p w it h Leas , and the ag re ement ap pli es to an y di sput e i n the course and s cope o f t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n tre l a t i o n s h i p , t h e m a t t e rs a re s u bj e c tt o t h e a r b i t ra t i o n a g re e m e n t

. W e are unpersuade d by

appel lan ts’ arg ument. T he initia l paragraph of the Rod rig uez contract sta tes: T h e p u rpose of this ag re ement i s t o s et forth ou r understa ndi ng and ag ree me nt( “ Ag ree me nt ” ) , pu rs ua ntt o w hi c h ou r l aw fi r m, TH E BE N N ETT11

LAW F IR M (“ Fi rm” ), has agreed to representST EPH EN T . LEAS ( “C li ent” or “y ou” ) in the fol low ing referenc ed matt ers: Sta te Ba r o f Texas Grievan ce Ma tter s; Appeal and Mo ti on to R econs ide r – S208 0103329; Maria H. Rodrigu ez

– Step hen T. Leas and BO DA C ase No. 26618; Stephe n T . Lea s v. Com m is si

on fo r Lawyer

D is ci pli ne (“ Ma tters” )[ .] W e hav e, of c ourse, dis cus sed thes e M atters w it h y ou prev iou sl y, b ut i t i s p ru dent that our und e r s t a n d i n g s b e d o c u me n t e d t o p r e v e n t a n y c o n fusion or mis understa ndi ng i n the future. Paragraph “C” in section “V” of the con tract stat es: The le g al fees ag re ed upon herein are for re present ati on of the C li ent i n the abov e referenc ed M atters and do not i ncl ude F ir m’s l eg al ser v ic es in any oth er m atte r. In the e v entt hatrep resen tatio n is required in any othe r court or reg ardin g anyother matter , a new ag re ement mus t be made betw een t he Fi rm and t he C li ent. Sect ion “ VIII ,” enti tl ed “ Ar bit ra ti on,” st ates , i n per ti nent par

t: To further

clar ify our agreement on arbi trati on, arbi trati on w oul d apply to any cont ro v ersy , cla im or dis pute in the c ourse and s cope of the Attor ney -C li ent re lat ion shi p or

ar is ing out of or re lat in g t o t h is Ag re ement or the breach, term ina ti on, e nforce ment, int er pretati on or v ali dity thereof, in cl udi ng the deter minat ion of the s cope or appl ic abi li ty

of thi s ag re ement to ar bit ra te. Our dispu te shall be dete rmine d by arbitratio n in Housto n, Texas befor e a so lo ar bit ra tor , i n ac cordance w it h the law s of the State of Tex as for ag re ements made i n and to be per

formed i n Tex as. “Dis p u te s” s h a ll in clu d e , with o u t li m it a ti o n , t h o se in volvin g fe e s, co st s, bi lli n g, and breach of ethi cal or fiduc iar y duti es. Appel lan ts submi tted the a ff ida v itof Rob ert Be nnett , w hic h w as a tt ached to appel lan ts’ Pl ea i n A b a tement and M oti on to Tran sfer Venue. I n the aff ida v it , Be nnett state s thatLea s “had th e Firm take on the a d dition al cases, and represen tatio n in the se cases was unde rtaken o n the m utu al conse nt of b oth parties th at th e represe nta tion in all
cas es w oul d be handl ed per the ter ms of the or ig ina l cont ra ct. ” The tr ia l court found that there w as no w ri tten ag re ement be tw een t he par ti es re g ardin g the Her re ra , Al v arez , or R ey es matters (findi ng number tw o)

. It als o found tha tSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17 1. 001( a) ( Verno n 20 05 ) (provi di ng t hat a wr i t t en 28 a g re e m e n t t o a rb i tra te i s va l i d a n d e n fo rc e a b l e i f th e a g re e m e n t i s to a rb i tra te a c o n tro v e rs y th a t: (1 ) e x i s ts at t he t i m e o f t he ag ree m en t ; or ( 2) ari s es be t w ee n t he pa rt i es aft er t he da t e o f t he ag ree m en t ).

I n r e G odt , 2 8 S .W .3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 9 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 0 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ); see T EX
. C IV
. 29 P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 71

. 00 2(a )( 3) (V ern on 20 05 ). 12 bec a u s e t h e re w a s n o w r i t t e n a g re e me n t t o a r b i t ra t e a s t o t h e s e p a rt i e s , a s r eq uir ed by
secti on 171. 001 of the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de, appel lan ts w ere notenti tl ed to 28
ar bit ra ti on on thos e matt ers. W e ag re e. The record c ontai ns no ev ide nce of any w ri tten ag re ements to ar bit ra te reg ardin g the H er re ra , Al v arez , or R ey es matters (a n d appell ants do n ot c ontend that suc h w ri tten agreem ent s ex is t ). The statu te do es no t provide thatan arbitrat ion agreem entis enforc eabl e i f it is bas ed on the mut ual v er bal co nsentof the pa rt ies. W e hol d the tr ial
cour t di d noter r in conc lud ing that appel lan ts w ere not enti tl ed to co mpel ar bit ra ti on w it h
re g ard to the H er re ra , Al v arez , and R ey es matters. W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ first is sue. Pers onal Injury

Exce ption In t hei r sec ond and thi rd i ss ues, appel lan ts cont end t he tr ial co urt er re d in appl y ing the “ personal inj ur

y ” ex cept ion in secti on 171.002 (a )( 3) of t he ci v il pract ic e and re medies code becau se (1 ) a l eg al malpract ic e c lai m is not a c lai m fo r “p e rsonal i nju ry ” (s econd is sue) , and ( 2) Benne tt and Lea s w ere bot h att or neys a t the ti me they si g ned t he ag re ement ( thi rd i ss ue)

. Appel lan ts urg e thi s C our t t o “ dis re gar d ” the t ri al cour t’ s fifth throug h ni nth fin din g s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law

. As app ellant s note , this Court has held t hata cla im for le gal m alpract ice is a claim for personal i nju ry

w it hin the meanin g of s ect ion 171. 002( a) of the TAA. The TAA does 29See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7 1 .0 0 2 (a )( 3 ), (c ). 30
Leas cont ends t hat at t he t i m e he si gned t he R odr i guez cont r act , he was not l i censed t o pr act i ce 31 l a w i n th e S ta te o f T e x a s
. W e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th i s a rg u m e n t.

See i d

. at § 1 71

. 00 2(c ) ( em ph as i s ad de d). 32
W e n o te th a t a p p e lla n ts ’ a r g u m e n t— th a t a p a r ty m e e ts t h e r e q u ir e m e n t ifh e /s h e is a n a tt o r n e y— 33 i s best di r ect ed t o t he T exas Legi sl at ur e. W e al so not e t hat i n t hi s case, t her e i s no e v i dence suggest i ng t hat ei t herpar t y ( bot h of

whom wer e l awy er s) was act i ng i n hi s capa ci t y as a l awy err epr esent i ng h i m sel fas a par t y . W e expr ess no opi ni on r egar di ng whet her any such ev i dence coul d sat i sf y t he st at ut or y r equi r em ent s. 13 not a ppl y

to a c lai m for personal i nju ry unl ess eac h par

ty to a c lai m, on the adv ic e of
coun sel, agrees to arb itrate in w riting, an d the a greem entis si gned by each pa rty and each par ty ’s att or ney
. The tr ial courtfound that (1) one of appel lee ’s clai ms in t he R odr ig uez

30 matter w as a c lai m for personal i nju ry ; ( 2) nei ther par ty ’s att or ney

si g ned t he ag re ement; (3 ) appel lee w as nei ther adv is ed i n w ri ti ng to cons ultan a ttor ney before si g nin g the ag re ement no r ind ependent ly represent ed w hen s ig nin g the ag re ement. Al thoug h appel lan ts urg e us to “d is re g ard” the tr ial court ’s f ind ing thatthe Rod ri g uez cont ra ct w as not s ig ned by ei ther par ty ’s att or ney of record, t he record i s c lea r that itw as not . Th e on ly

sig nat ures tha t app ear on the con tract are th ose o f Lea s and Robert Ben net t. App ellant s argue thatev en if w e f ind th at ap pellee ’s malpra ctice claim is a claim for person al injury , the arbitration cla use n one the less com plies w ith the TAA’s
re q uirements bec ause both par ti es w ere att or ney s. The sta tute, how ev er , prov ide s t hat 31
ar bit ra ti on does not appl y to personal inj ur y cl aims unl ess “e ach par ty to the cl aim, on t he advice of

coun sel, ag re e s i n wri ting to arbitrate ” and “the agreeme nt is sig ned byeach p a rt y and each par

ty’ s a ttor ney .” The s tatut e does not prov ide an e x cept ion i f t he par ti es 32
are att or ney s. W e hol d the ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he tr ial 33See Tayl or v. W ilson , 18 0 S

. W

. 3d 62 7, 63 1 (T ex
. A pp
. –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 05 , pe t

. de ni ed ); 34 M i ll er v. Brew er , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 8 (T e x . A p p .– A m a ril l o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.) (p e r c u ria m ); I n r e Harti gan , 107 S .W .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 9 0 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 3 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ).

I n r e Harti gan , 1 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 6 9 0

. 35
S e e id

. 36
S e e id

. a t 6 8 7

. 37
M i ll er , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 9 8

. 38 14 c o u rt ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t“ [ t ] h e c o n t ra c tw a s n o ts i g n e d b y e i t h e r p a rt y ’ s a t t o r n e y

o f re c o rd

. ” W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ thi rd i ss ue. T h u s, if appel lee ’s l eg al malpract ic e c lai m is a c lai m for personal i nju ry , t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing ar bit rati o n b e ca u se the R odr ig uez cont ra ct does not c omply w it h s ect ion 171. 002( c)

. Appel lan ts note that si nce thi s C our t’ s h old ing i n Godt , t hree of our si ste r cour

ts have held thata legal malpract ice claim is not a c lai m for personal in jury

. I n In re 34 Har ti gan , t he San Ant oni o cour t re li ed on a “p lai n re adi ng of sect ion 107. 002" t o c oncl ude that a l eg al malpract ic e c lai m “ is not spec ific all y prohi bit ed from a rb it ra ti on.” The Har ti gan 35
cour t c ri ti ci z ed our

rel ian ce on the cas es ci ted i n Godt, and argued tha t the re is nothin g in the l eg is lat iv e hi sto ry

of secti on 107. 002 t o s how thatthe leg is lat ure i ntended for t he pe rs on al i nj ur

y p rov i s i on to exte nd to l eg al ma l practi c e c l ai ms
. I n Har ti gan , the plaintif

f ’s 36 legal malpra ctice claim a gainst her att orne y s arose f ro m h er represen tatio n in a divorce p ro ce e d in g. 37 In Mi ller v. Br ewer , t he Amar il lo cour

t foll ow ed th e rati onal e of the Har ti gan court in “refus[i ng ] to hol d that a leg al malpract ic e sui t [ is ] per se one for

perso nal inju ri es. ” The 38 Miller cour

t reason ed th at th e p lai nti ff ’s l eg al malpract ic e c lai m arose “o ut of a s uitforId

. at 898
- 99. 39 Tayl or , 1 8 0 S .W .3 d a t 6 3 1

. 40
Id

. a t 6 3 0

. 41
Id

. 42
Id

. a t 6 3 2 (F ro s t, J ., c o n c u rr i n g ). 43
Id

. a t 6 3 2 -3 3

. 44 15 econo micl oss es as a r e sul t of empl oy ment di sc ri minat ion ,” and w as therefore— li ke the malpract ic e c lai m in Har ti gan ar is ing f ro m represent ati on i n a d iv orce proceed ing —“ not a sui t for personal i nju ri es” w it hin the pur v iew of the s tatut e. 39 Fi nal ly , i n Tay

lor v. Wils on , th e F ourte ent h C ou rt of A pp ea l s rea c he d th e s am e
conc lus ion as the Har

ti gan and Miller cour

ts in holdi ng that a leg al malpract ic e c lai m is not
a c lai m for pers onal inju ry
. I n W il son , the court no ted thatthe pla intif f ’s “underlyi ng claim 40
w as for ec onomicl oss es ra ther than for p ersonal i nju ry .” The W il son cour t al so re li ed on 41 th e l e gi slative history

of the T AA, which, accordin g to th e cou rt, “rev eals th e legislature int ended to re str ict the sc ope of t he personal inj ur y ex cept ion to physica l personal i nju ry .” 42 In hi s c oncur ri ng opi nio n i n W il son , J ust ic e F ro st noted th a t “[t]he ter m ‘p ersonal inj ury ’ h a s b e e n u s e d i n b o t h a n a r ro w s e n s e o f ‘ b o d i l y

i n j u r y ’ a n d a b ro a d e r

s ense, meanin g a p e rso n a l w ro ng , i ncl udi ng l ibe l, sl ander , mal ic iou s p ro sec uti on, a ss aul t, and false impr is onment, as w ell as bodi ly i nju ry .” J ust ic e F ro st conc lud ed th at a leg al

43
ma lpractice claim is not a perso nal-injury claim un der eit her the nar ro w

or broad defin it ion becau se it“ does not i nv olv e bodi ly i nju ry , and i t doe s n ot inv olv e inj ur ies to ri g hts reg ardin g the p erson. ” J ust ic e F ro st al so cr it ic iz ed the maj or ity ’s l eg is lat iv e hi sto ry arg ument, noti ng 44Id

. a t 6 3 4 (c i ti n g R o b e rt J . K ra e m e r, A tt o r n e y - C lie n t C o n u n d ru m : Th e U s e o f A r b itra tio n A g re e m e n ts 45 f or Leg al Mal pr acti ce i n Texas , 33 S T
. M A RY ’ S L. J. 909, 933 n.13 9 (20 02 ). Sam pl e v. Freem an , 8 7 3 S .W .2 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 6 (T e x . A p p .– B e a u m o n t 1 9 9 4 , w ritd e n i e d ). 46
Est at e of

D egl ey v. Vega , 7 9 7 S .W .2 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 2 -0 3 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 0 , n o w rit ). 47
G odt , 28 S. W

. 3d a t 738
- 39. 48
W e no t e t hat t hi s i ssue i s cur r ent l y bef or e t he supr em e cour t

. I n t he appel l ant s’ br i efi n C ham ber s, 49 et al

. v. O ’ Q uinn , 2 0 0 7 T X S . C t. B rie fs L E X IS 5 9 2 , **1 5 , a p p e l l a n ts s ta te : T he Supr em e C our t shoul d exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear and deci de t he m ost i m por t ant i ssues ofwhet hera com pul sor y ar bi t r at i on cl ause, i n an at t or ney - cl i ent cont i ngency f ee co nt r act i n v o l v i n g a p e rs o n a l i n ju ry/p ro p e rty d a m a g e c a s e i s e n fo rc e a b l e , a n d w h e th e r, i n c i d e n ta l to t hat ov er r i di ng i ssue, whet hert he Pet i t i oner s “ i nt ent i onal l y , v ol unt ar i l y , i nt el l i gent l y and k n o w in g ly” w a iv e d th e ir c o n s tit u tio n a l r ig h t t o a tr ia l b y ju r y.
16 that itreli es sol ely

on a st atement ex press ing an o pin ion of the a uthor of a comment, and is therefore, “n ot pa rtof the l eg is lat iv e hi sto ry at all .” 45 In Godt , w e c it e d Sam

plev. F re em an and Est

ate o f D egley v. Vega in suppo rt 46 47 of our hol din g thata l eg al malpract ic e c lai m is a c lai m for personal i n ju ry wi thi n the meanin g of secti on 171. 001( a)

. W e recog niz e tha t our si ste r courts hav e dec li ned t o 48 fo ll o w Godt

. How ev er , abs ent g uid ance from the supreme courton t his i ss ue, w e dec li ne to ab andon o ur

ear li er precede nt. W e conc lud e the tr ial cour t did not e rr

i n findi ng that 49 one of appel lee ’s cl aims i n the R odr ig uezmatte r (l e gal m alp ra cti ce) w as a c lai m for personal i nju ry
. W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ se cond is sue. Beca use w e hav e det er mined thatappell ee’ s leg al malpract ic e c lai m is a c lai m for personal i nju ry

w it hin the meanin g of secti on 171. 001( a) , and the Rod ri g uezco ntractdoes not c omply

w it h the st atuto ry

req uirements of

s e cti on 171. 001( c) , w e hol d tha t t he tr ial
cour t di d noter r in deny ing ar bit ra ti on. Acc ordin g ly, w e AF FI RM the tr ial co urt’ s o rd erS e e L o u d e r m ilk , 2 0 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 2

. 50
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 51 17 deny ing appel lan ts’ req uestto compel ar bit ra ti on. Beca use w e are req uired to uphol d the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng i f it is p ro p e r on any groun ds, w e ne ed n ot ad dress ap pellan ts’ rema ining issues.

50 51

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n by Ju sti ce Ros e Vel a. Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.