Slater-Moore v. Goeldner
113 So. 3d 521
Miss.2013Background
- Slater-Moore hired Goeldner Law Firm to represent her in a failed litigation and appeal, and two contracts were formed during that period.
- Both contracts contained nearly identical arbitration provisions for disputes over attorney fees, under the Mississippi Bar Fee Dispute Resolution Procedure.
- June 2007 contract provided a mixed flat fee and hourly rates; October 2008 contract mirrored the arbitration clause and fee structure for the appeal.
- Slater-Moore later sued Goeldner for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and billing misconduct, claiming overbilling beyond the contracted fees.
- Circuit Court granted partial relief by compelling arbitration of the fee dispute; other malpractice claims would proceed in court if not arbitrable.
- Court: arbitration agreements are valid and the fee dispute is within the scope of arbitration; no external constraints foreclose arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreements | Slater-Moore contends the agreements were not mutually binding. | Goeldner asserts mutual assent and binding arbitration under the contracts. | Arbitration agreements valid and enforceable. |
| Whether the fee dispute falls within the arbitration scope | Fee dispute not arbitrable; other claims are separate. | Fee dispute falls within the arbitration clause; other claims may remain in court. | Fee dispute within scope of arbitration. |
| External legal constraints preventing arbitration | Procedural unconscionability and barriers to arbitration apply. | No external constraints; contracts were clear and signed; provisions are enforceable. | No external constraints precluded arbitration. |
| Procedural unconscionability or per se invalidity of attorney-arbitration | Arbitration terms are unconscionable or improper in attorney-client context. | No unconscionability; terms were disclosed and signed; ABA guidance supports predispute arbitration. | Arbitration provisions not procedurally unconscionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- IP Timberlands Operating Co., Ltd. v. Denmiss Corp., 726 So.2d 96 (Miss. 1998) (arbitration should be liberally construed to encourage dispute resolution)
- Terminix Int’l, Inc. v. Rice, 904 So.2d 1051 (Miss. 2004) (two-prong FAA analysis and validity/enforceability of arbitration clauses)
- Scruggs v. Wyatt, 60 So.3d 758 (Miss. 2011) (two-prong inquiry for referral to arbitration)
- University Nursing Associates, PLLC v. Phillips, 842 So.2d 1270 (Miss. 2008) (transfer of FAA interpretive approach to non-interstate contracts)
- Blakeney v. Blakesley (Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer, Inc. v. Blakeney), 950 So.2d 170 (Miss. 2007) (severing non-arbitrable claims from arbitrable ones)
- Barnes v. Magnolia Healthcare, Inc., 994 So.2d 159 (Miss. 2008) (arbitration clause interpretation where contract referenced specific ADR services)
- Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Battle, 873 So.2d 79 (Miss. 2004) (upheld arbitration agreement between fee-disputing parties in legal services context)
- Byrd v. Simmons, 5 So.3d 384 (Miss. 2009) (mutual assent analysis in arbitration agreement context)