SPR - February 2002 Headlines & Topics


February 2002

Overview of topics...

This is the third of a three-part series on the new Rule 137 that took effect on January 1, 2002, mandating the arbitration of attorney's fee disputes at the client's option and applying the rule in all, not just matrimonial actions.

Treated in Part I in Issue 117

Background
Applicable Only Where Representation "Commenced" After January 1, 2002
Bar Associations to Administer Program
Where to Call for Guidance on Program Used Locally
Management of the Program
Governing Rules and Standards
Applicable in All Civil Cases, Not Just Marital Actions
Attorney's Duty to Inform Client of Arbitration Rights
When Is There "Dispute" That Triggers Rule 137 Procedures?
Attorney's Retaining Lien Exceptions in Which Rule 137 Doesn't Apply

Treated in Part II in Issue 118

The $1000 Threshold and the $50,000 Cap
Statute of Limitations Issues
Consent by Both Sides Is Universal Cure-All
The Arbitral Panels
Venue of the Arbitration
The Procedure to Be Followed
Lawyer's Non-Participation Invokes Grievance Procedure
May Default Be Excused?
Does CPLR Article 75 Apply to Fee Dispute Arbitrations?
The Model Forms, Prescribed for Most Steps
The Arbitration Hearing
The Award

Treated in Part III (in this Issue 119)

No "Review" of Award: Trial de Novo Allowed Instead
Procedure for Trial De Novo
Any Other "Review" If Loser Does Not Seek Trial de Novo?
Confidentiality
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Issues
Enforcement of Award
Which Court to Enter the Award In?
Statutory Basis for Rule Allowing Direct Entry on Award
Appointment of Pro Bono Attorney to Help Client Enforce Award
Mediation Instead of Arbitration

ARTICLE HEADLINES

FEATURE ARTICLE:
RULE 137 ON MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF ATTORNEY'S FEE DISPUTES TAKES EFFECT JANUARY 1, 2002, AND APPLIES IN ALL (NOT JUST MATRIMONIAL) ACTIONS

We conclude in this issue the three-part series on the new Rule 137 that took effect on January 1, 2002, mandating the arbitration of attorney's fee disputes at the client's option and applying the rule in all, not just matrimonial actions. The author acknowledges the helpful suggestions of Patrick M. Connors, his Albany Law School colleague and a specialist in professional ethics, who reviewed all three installments in this series.

PART III, CAPTIONS:

No "Review" of Award: Trial de Novo Allowed Instead

Procedure for Trial De Novo

Any Other "Review" If Loser Does Not Seek Trial de Novo?

Confidentiality

Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Issues

Enforcement of Award

Which Court to Enter the Award In?

Statutory Basis for Rule Allowing Direct Entry on Award

Appointment of Pro Bono Attorney to Help Client Enforce Award

Mediation Instead of Arbitration