Bartlit Beck LLP v. Okeda

Dist. Ct. did not err in confirming $54.6 million attorney’s fee award that arbitration panel found in favor of plaintiff-law firm, even though defendant-former client of plaintiff argued that arbitration procedure, which included arbitration panel deciding merits of parties’ attorney’s fee dispute only on written submissions from plaintiff, was fundamentally unfair. Record showed that: (1) less that 72 hours prior to scheduled evidentiary hearing set by panel, defendant informed panel that he would not be attending hearing; (2) panel then stated that it planned to proceed with or without defendant, and that his non-attendance could subject him to default; (3) defendant replied that reason for his boycott of hearing was his contention that his attorney engagement agreement with plaintiff was invalid; (4) defendant also stated that even if he were inclined to attend hearing, he could not make trip from Japan to attend hearing because of undisclosed medical reasons; (5) defendant further announced that he was not authorizing his attorneys to participate in arbitration and was canceling all witnesses; and (6) arbitration panel held defendant in default, and, in relying on CPR Rule 16, issued decision based only on plaintiff’s written submissions. While defendant argued that procedure used by arbitration panel was unfair, Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s contention, where panel’s decision to proceed without defendant was fair because it was reasonable, where defendant had unequivocally announced his refusal to participate in hearing. It further noted that defendant’s claim of medical emergency was not supported by record, and that defendant never requested that panel consider his evidence notwithstanding his absence.