Attorney does not have duty to explain attribution clause in new fee agreement where clients failed to carefully read agreement and were sophisticated businesspersons. Desert Outdoor Advertising v. The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County; Gerald M. Murphy, (No. A129051 California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, June 17, 2011).

This case stands for the proposition that a lawyer does not have a fiduciary duty to separately explain and arbitration clause to his clients so that the clients admitted failure to fully read the agreement is “reasonable” and a basis to avoid arbitration.  Under the circumstances of this case, clients who were described as sophisticated businesspersons, the appeals court concluded that there was no duty to separately explain the arbitration clause.

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: