Law Firms Mull ADR After Lawyer Suits, But Verdict's Still Out
A recent spate of lawyers suing well-known law firms is prompting partners to consider requiring mandatory arbitration for such disputes. However, many law firms are reluctant to do so, and fear that adverse publicity and expensive, time-consuming discovery could still result even if they do successfully block associate and partner access to courtroom resolution of law-firm-related issues.
It appears that Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis may be one of a relatively small number of BigLaw firms requiring all partners and employees to arbitrate disputes with the law firm, under a newly revised policy that took effect this spring, reports the National Law Journal, in an article reprinted by New York Lawyer (reg. req.).
Although statistics aren’t clear-cut, perhaps 10 percent of all U.S. law firms have mandatory arbitration policies in place, according to one survey cited in the article. It is apparently more common for law firms to require partners to submit to mandatory arbitration of disputes. Among those now reportedly considering mandatory arbitration for all employees are Sullivan & Cromwell and DLA Piper.
As discussed in earlier ABAJournal.com posts, recent lawyer-law firm disputes include a gay bias case apparently settled by a former Sullivan & Cromwell associate, a female associate who claims that Boston’s Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo discriminates against women and a race discrimination case by a former Clifford Chance associate.
“Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the arbitration agreement at O’Melveny & Myers, which applied to associates and other employees, violated California law,” the National Law Journal notes. “The provision called for the termination of employees within three months if they did not sign the agreement. The court ruled the arbitration requirement overly broad. “
