California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB692

Introduced
2/19/19  
Refer
2/28/19  
Refer
2/28/19  
Report Pass
3/26/19  
Report Pass
3/26/19  
Engrossed
4/1/19  
Engrossed
4/1/19  
Refer
4/1/19  
Refer
4/1/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Report Pass
6/4/19  
Enrolled
6/18/19  
Enrolled
6/18/19  
Chaptered
6/26/19  
Chaptered
6/26/19  
Passed
6/26/19  

Caption

Attorneys: arbitration of attorney’s fees.

Impact

With the passage of AB692, the timelines for filing civil actions against attorneys for wrongful acts relating to professional services are also altered. The bill introduces a provision allowing for the tolling of the statute of limitations if a dispute regarding fees or costs is pending resolution through arbitration. This means that clients have additional time to file claims against attorneys, providing them with a fairer opportunity to resolve disputes concerning attorneys' fees and costs-related issues before instituting civil actions.

Summary

Assembly Bill 692, introduced by Maienschein, modifies existing laws related to arbitration of attorneys' fees in California. The current legal framework requires that parties seeking judicial resolution of disputes must wait until arbitration proceedings conclude before initiating a civil action. AB692 amends the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to allow clients to commence arbitration following the initiation of a civil action by their attorney. This change aims to streamline the dispute resolution process, enabling clients to seek arbitration and potentially reach a resolution without lengthy legal battles.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB692 appears generally supportive, particularly among attorneys who view the amendments as a positive reform for improving arbitration processes and client relations. Legislative discussions highlighted a recognition that clarifying the arbitration process could benefit both clients and attorneys, improving the efficiency of legal service resolution. However, there may be apprehensions from some individuals regarding the potential for extended disputes if arbitration processes are misused or prolonged.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between clients' rights to seek redress and the potential for abuse by initiating arbitration without merit. Critics argue that while the bill allows necessary flexibility for dispute resolution, it may inadvertently encourage frivolous arbitration requests, delaying the resolution process. Lawmakers engaged in discussions around ensuring that both clients and attorneys are held accountable in arbitration, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a fair playing field in attorney-client relations.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB3120

Damages: childhood sexual assault: statute of limitations.

CA AB218

Damages: childhood sexual assault: statute of limitations.

CA SB558

Civil actions: childhood sexual abuse.

CA SB224

Personal rights: civil liability and enforcement.

CA AB452

Childhood sexual assault: statute of limitations.

CA AB2959

Childhood sexual assault: claims.