Second Appellate District had the opportunity to examine the issue in Florida’s Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP v. Forier. There, the plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against his former attorney, alleging that an agreement for the sale of property the attorney drafted failed to include all of the necessary parcels of land. Prior to the agreement, the plaintiff signed a retainer agreement with the attorneys that included an arbitration provision requiring that controversy, dispute, or claim between us, whether based on “any this agreement, on the timely payment of fees, on a claim of inadequate representation, or on any other grounds, shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration before a board of arbiters consisting of three attorneys, all of whom shall be members of the Clearwater Bar Association or Hillsborough Bar The findings of fact by the trial Association.” court ruled that plaintiff was not unsophisticated, that he had read the agreement, and that the provisions was not unconscionable. Nonetheless, the trial court refused to enforce a motion to compel arbitration, concluding that such agreements violated public policy. On appeal, the reviewing court reversed the decision, holding that the trial court failed to validly justify its concerns regarding public policy. The court summarized its opinion by stating: are not aware of any Florida cases holding that it is against public policy for an attorney “We to include a clause in a legal services contract requiring arbitration of legal malpractice disputes... [or] of any constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting these agreements on public policy grounds. Although [Plaintiff[ argues that we should affirm the trial court's decision because [Defendant] breached his ethical duties to provide full disclosure, give candid advice, and avoid conflict when he submitted the arbitration do not clause…we
Florida’s Second Appellate District had the opportunity to examine the issue in Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP v. Forier. There, the plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against his former attorney, alleging that an agreement for the sale of property the attorney drafted failed to include all of the necessary parcels of land. Prior to the agreement, the plaintiff signed a retainer agreement with the attorneys that included an arbitration provision requiring that “any controversy, dispute, or claim between us, whether based on this agreement, on the timely payment of fees, on a claim of inadequate representation, or on any other grounds, shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration before a board of arbiters consisting of three attorneys, all of whom shall be members of the Clearwater Bar Association or Hillsborough Bar Association.” The findings of fact by the trial court ruled that plaintiff was not unsophisticated, that he had read the agreement, and that the provisions was not unconscionable. Nonetheless, the trial court refused to enforce a motion to compel arbitration, concluding that such agreements violated public policy. On appeal, the reviewing court reversed the decision, holding that the trial court failed to validly justify its concerns regarding public policy. The court summarized its opinion by stating: “We are not aware of any Florida cases holding that it is against public policy for an attorney to include a clause in a legal services contract requiring arbitration of legal malpractice disputes... [or] of any constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting these agreements on public policy grounds. Although [Plaintiff[ argues that we should affirm the trial court's decision because [Defendant] breached his ethical duties to provide full disclosure, give candid advice, and avoid conflict when he submitted the arbitration clause…we do not