HARRISBURG – A law firm will have its day in arbitration after all as the Superior Court vacated a ruling that overruled its effort to compel arbitration in a negligence case against it.
Lindquist & Vennum LLP filed the appeal following the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s decision to side with plaintiff Mackin Medical Inc., which alleged the law firm was negligent in giving it advice concerning the rental of GreenLight lasers.
Lindquist & Vennum responded with preliminary objections that said its agreement with Mackin Medical compelled arbitration. The lower court overruled and said it wasn’t clear if the arbitration clause pertained to a malpractice claim. The Superior Court vacated that ruling on April 6.
“Neither Mackin Medical nor the trial court has provided a cogent argument or claim as to how the [American Arbitration Association’s] Commercial Arbitration Rules would or could limit appellant’s liability to Mackin for malpractice,” Judge Judith Ference Olson wrote.
President Judge Jack Panella and President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott concurred. “Further, nothing in the parties’ agreement limits the broad grant of authority to the arbitrator award ‘any remedy or relief that the arbitrator deems just and equitable,'" the opinion says.
The judges also ruled the lower court shouldn’t have determined that the arbitration clause is an infringement on the Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(a)(1) because it doesn’t include typical fee agreements for a lawyer and its client, which is the concern in the current lawsuit.
The judges called out the lower court for ruling against the law firm under the simple notion that arbitration and courts have different processes, subsequently canceling out all arbitration clauses for the same reason.
“This rationale thwarts the will of Congress and violates the [Federal Arbitration Act],” wrote Olson, as the judges went on to disagree with the lower court that the clause is too broad. They pointed out that the provision does include malpractice disputes like this one, but that doesn’t make it overly ambiguous.