On January 29th and February 9th, I had the pleasure of stepping into the former shoes of Professor Lester Brickman, of Cardozo Law School, to present the law of fee dispute arbitration and the inner, decisional process of arbitrators engaged in fee dispute arbitration at a Part 137 Fee Dispute Arbitration training hosted by the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA). A video of this presentation is available by clicking the above photo.
As background, in the late 1990s, I had the good fortune of serving as Chair of the Joint Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation, a three Bar panel – City Bar, Bronx Bar, and NYCLA – which was hosted by the New York County Lawyers Association. When Part 137 was promulgated, we used that Panel, enhanced by newly minted Commercial Division mediators, as the basis for NYCLA’s Part 137 Panel. When presenting Fee dispute Arbitration panel trainings, like this one, over the years, a centerpiece of our morning was a one hour and fifteen-minute lecture by Professor Lester Brickman on the Law of Fee Dispute Arbitration. As moderator, I found myself at times challenging Professor Brickman's messages to the extent they were consumerist and seemed to open the door too widely towards potentially redrawing the parties' agreement, in light of ethical and case law considerations on the reasonableness of the fee. These considerations must also be balanced by the recognition that this is a contractual relationship and, at first instance, is governed by the Retainer Agreement, and the settled and reasonable expectations of the parties.
In this latest video, I have been challenged to shrink Professor Brickman's lecture into a half-hour slot, and to convey his core message as well as the counterpoint. I hope this prompts reflection on this ever-fascinating question.
Watch the Video
