214 So. 3d 116
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Potier signed a Morris Bart retainer containing a broad arbitration clause after a meeting and a home visit by a non‑attorney investigator; she previously retained Morris Bart for other matters.
- Potier’s underlying personal‑injury claim settled in mediation; she later sued Morris Bart for malpractice alleging improper negotiation of that settlement.
- Morris Bart moved to stay and compel arbitration under the retainer; the district court held a hearing, found the agreement enforceable, and stayed the litigation (Oct. 9, 2014). Potier did not seek supervisory review.
- The dispute proceeded to arbitration (extensive discovery; two‑day hearing); the arbitrator ruled for Morris Bart and awarded costs/fees (Mar. 3, 2016).
- Morris Bart moved to confirm the award; the district court confirmed and dismissed Potier’s suit with prejudice (June 13, 2016). Potier appealed, arguing the original stay was erroneous because she is functionally illiterate and could not appreciate the retainer’s terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of arbitration clause / adhesion contract? | Potier: retainer was adhesionary and unenforceable (she could not appreciate terms). | Morris Bart: clause is clear, mutual, not small print or oppressive; Potier could decline and hire another attorney. | Court: Not adhesionary; clause readable, mutual, and not unduly harsh; stay was proper. |
| Whether trial court properly stayed suit and compelled arbitration | Potier: stay was erroneous due to her functional illiteracy (argued on appeal). | Morris Bart: arbitration agreement governs malpractice disputes; federal/state law favors arbitration. | Court: Potier failed to raise illiteracy at the stay hearing; issue is forfeited. On the record, stay/order to arbitrate was correct. |
| Whether district court erred in confirming the arbitration award | Potier: seeks to vacate award by attacking interlocutory stay order. | Morris Bart: confirmation is required absent statutory grounds to vacate under La. R.S. 9:4210. | Court: Arbitrator’s award presumed valid; Potier raised none of the exclusive statutory bases to vacate; confirmation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- International River Center v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 861 So.2d 139 (La. 2003) (threshold inquiry is whether parties agreed to arbitrate and whether dispute falls within scope; doubts resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal policy favors arbitration and doubts are resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 908 So.2d 1 (La. 2005) (court shall stay proceedings if issue is referable to arbitration; presumption in favor of arbitration is strong)
- Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., 871 So.2d 380 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (any doubt whether controversy is arbitrable resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., 326 So.2d 865 (La. 1976) (contracts of adhesion raise consent questions but are not per se unenforceable)
- Dicorte v. Landrieu, 993 So.2d 799 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (arbitration awards are presumed valid)