Opinion ID: 1949615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bolton's Challenge to ACAB's Authority

Text: Bolton argues that the proceedings before [ACAB] were procedurally defective because she never formally agreed to arbitrate the amount ultimately before [ACAB]. Although she never identifies the statutory basis for her challenge, it amounts to a claim that the ACAB arbitrators exceeded their powers. D.C.Code § 16-4311(a)(3) (2001). Considering, however, that Bolton explicitly agreed to arbitrate any fee dispute arising between the parties when she signed the retainer agreement in December 1998, that she was the first party to invoke arbitration, [6] that she was kept informed of the amount of fees in dispute throughout the proceedings, [7] and that she fully participated in the arbitration, we reject her challenge. [8] Bolton rests her entire argument on ACAB Rule of Procedure 9, which requires an agreement to arbitrate. Rule 9(2) provides that when, as here, the petition is filed by a lawyer, [ACAB] will send the client a copy of these rules and an agreement form. The agreement to arbitrate will set out the amount in dispute. Rule 9(2)(a) states that [i]f the client signs the form and returns it to [ACAB] or [ACAB] receives any other binding consent by the client, the arbitration process will begin. However, Rule 9(2)(c) provides alternative authority: ACAB will enforce an attorney/client agreement to arbitrate a fee dispute that is entered into prior to the dispute [but] only if the pre-dispute agreement complies with Legal Ethics Opinion 218. [9] The retainer agreement contains an arbitration clause: If any fee dispute arises which can not be resolved between the Firm and the Client, the parties agree that all such disputes shall be submitted to binding arbitration before the District of Columbia Bar's Attorney-Client Arbitration Board (ACAB). And it is clear that ACAB relied upon this agreement as the basis of its authority. In a letter dated July 31, 2001, ACAB informed Bolton's attorney that it had examined the fee agreement and ha[d] determined that it satisfies the requirements of the ACAB Fee Arbitration Service Rules of Procedures and Legal Ethics Opinion 218. There was no need to obtain Bolton's signature on an agreement form because she was bound to arbitrate under the retainer agreement, regardless of the amount sought by B & K.