From our good friend Chuck Herring: Here‘s a somewhat interesting decision reversing in part an arbitration award on an attorney’s fees issue, holding that a contract provision that permitted the lawyer to recover fees and expenses for time spent incident to withdrawing from representation was unconscionable and unenforceable on public policy grounds because the DRs require that fees can be charged only for services performed on behalf of a client, as opposed to services performed on the lawyer’s behalf.

The following bills are currently being floated around the U.S. House: H.R. 991. To treat arbitration clauses which are unilaterally imposed on consumers as an unfair and deceptive trade practice and prohibit their use in consumer transactions. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services on 02/11/2009. H.R. 1020. To amend Chapter 1 of title 9 of the U.S. Code with respect to arbitration. This is the “Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009.” The bill states that the FAA was originally intended to apply to commercial disputes, not to consumers and employees. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on 02/12/2009. H.R. 243. To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor on 01/07/2009.

We thought you’d want to check out this paper by John Allen Chalk and Rebecca Eaton from Whitaker, Chalk, Swindle & Sawyer, LLP. The authors do an excellent job at compiling noteworthy cases related to general arbitration, employment, consumer, and class actions arbitration.

As we discussed here, the 81st Texas Legislature is considering an amendment to the Texas Arbitration Act. Senate Bill 222, authored by Senator Royce West, was filed on November 10, 2008 and was referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence on February 11, 2009. Should you have any comments about S.B. 222, please feel free to contact us.